natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
With regard to the provisions of the old Staff Regulations providing for the application of a correction coefficient to the remuneration and pensions of officials, the Court has already held that it is unsustainable to contend that a provision whose objective is to maintain equality of purchasing power for all retired officials regardless of their place of residence is incompatible with the principle of equal treatment (see the order of 29 April 2004 in Case C-187/03 P Drouvis v Commission, paragraphs 25 and 26 and the caselaw cited).
Sodi�če je v zvezi s členi starih Kadrovskih predpisov, ki določajo uporabo korekcijskega koeficienta za prejemke in za pokojnine uradnikov, že presodilo, da ni mogoče trditi, da določba, katere namen je ohranitev enake kupne moči za vse upokojene uradnike ne glede na kraj njihovega prebivali�ča, ni v skladu z načelom enakega obravnavanja (glej sklep z dne 29. aprila 2004 v zadevi Drouvis proti Komisiji, C-187/03 P, točki 25 in 26, in navedena sodna praksa).
However, as the Court of First Instance rightly pointed out at paragraphs 99 to 101 of the judgment under appeal, a system of correction coefficients, by its very nature, cannot ensure absolutely equal treatment for former officials, since it is clearly impossible to take account of the cost of living and its variations in all areas of the various Member States in which pensioners may establish their residence and to apply a specific correction coefficient to each of those areas.
Vendar kot je to pravilno ugotovilo Sodi�če prve stopnje v točkah od 99 do 101 izpodbijane sodbe, sistem korekcijskega koeficienta že zaradi svoje narave ne more zagotoviti popolnoma enakega obravnavanja nekdanjih uradnikov, glede na to, da je očitno nemogoče upo�tevati življenjske stro�ke in njihove spremembe v vseh krajih posameznih držav članic, kjer se lahko nastanijo upokojenci, ter uporabiti, za vsakega od teh krajev, poseben korekcijski koeficient.
Under those circumstances, a single correction coefficient per country can constitute an appropriate indicator to reflect, in a necessarily approximate way, the cost of living in a Member State.
V teh okoli�činah en sam korekcijski koeficient za državo pomeni ustrezen kazalec, ki le približno izraža življenjske stro�ke v državi članici.
With regard to the method to be chosen for the calculation of such a single correction coefficient per country, it is common ground, as the Advocate General pointed out in points 69 and 70 of his Opinion, that, whatever system is chosen, it can at best constitute a reasonable approximation of the actual cost of living of each former
Glede metode, ki jo je treba izbrati za izračun takega edinega korekcijskega koeficienta za državo, ni dvoma, kot je ugotovil generalni pravobranilec v točkah 69 in 70 sklepnih predlogov, da bo tak�en sistem ne glede na to, katerega izberemo, omogočil kvečjemu dovolj razumno upo�tevanje približno ocenjenih dejanskih življenjskih
2008 — CASE C-71/07 P official and that, viewed in that light, both the ‘capital method’ and the ‘country method’ have advantages and disadvantages.
2008 – ZADEVA C-71/07 P stro�kov vsakega nekdanjega uradnika, in da imata, ob upo�tevanju tega, tako metoda „glavnega mesta“ kot metoda „države“ svoje prednosti in slabosti.
Given the necessarily approximate nature of a single correction coefficient per country, it must be considered that the goal of ensuring a certain parity of purchasing power among former officials residing in the various Member States has been attained, to the extent that the single correction coefficient is determined according to criteria which ensure that it is representative.
Glede na to, da je korekcijski koeficient nujno le približen, je namreč treba �teti, da je cilj zagotovitve določene enakovrednosti kupne moči med nekdanjimi uradniki, ki prebivajo v različnih državah članicah, upo�tevan, kjer je ta edini korekcijski koeficient določen v skladu z merili, ki zagotavljajo njegovo reprezentativnost.
It is undeniable that the ‘country method’ reflects the cost of living in a State in a manner that is at least as representative as the ‘capital method’.
Vendar ni dvoma, da metoda „države“ upo�teva življenjske stro�ke znotraj države članice na vsaj tako reprezentativen način kot metoda „glavnega mesta“.
Since the ‘country method’ is therefore an appropriate method of calculation for the purpose of ensuring, as far as possible, equality of purchasing power for all pensioners, the Court of First Instance did not err in law in holding that the Community legislature had not infringed the principle of equal treatment by substituting the ‘country method’ for the ‘capital method’ for the purpose of determining correction coefficients in the transitional pension arrangements.
Zato ker metoda „države“ predstavlja način ustreznega izračuna za zagotovitev, kolikor je mogoče, enakovrednosti kupne moči upokojencev, Sodi�če prve stopnje ni zmotno uporabilo prava, ko je presodilo, da zakonodajalec Skupnosti s tem, da je za določitev korekcijskih koeficientov v okviru prehodne pokojninske ureditve metodo „države“ zamenjal z metodo „glavnega mesta“, ni kr�il načela enakega obravnavanja.
The appellant’s criticisms of paragraph 105 of the judgment under appeal must be regarded as unfounded.
Glede kritik, ki jih je pritožnik navedel zoper točko 105 izpodbijane sodbe, je treba ugotoviti, da se te izkažejo za neutemeljene.
It is clear from the reasoning set out at paragraphs 99 to 104 of the judgment under appeal that, contrary to the appellant’s argument, the Court of First Instance gave a negative answer to the question whether the new method of determining correction coefficients constitutes an arbitrary or manifestly inappropriate differentiation in the light of the objective to be achieved.
Iz razlogovanja, predstavljenega v točkah od 99 do 104 izpodbijane sodbe, izhaja, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje v nasprotju s tem, kar trdi pritožnik, dejansko nikalno odgovorilo na vpra�anje, ali nova metoda določitve korekcijskih koeficientov pomeni samovoljno in očitno neprimerno razlikovanje glede na zasledovani cilj.
In so doing, it in no way held that the existence of a sufficiently long transitional period is the sole restriction on the legislature’s power, as the appellant suggests, but, on the contrary and on the basis of reasoning similar to that set out at paragraphs 51 to 54 of the present judgment, examined the question whether the Community legislature had infringed the principle of equal treatment by substituting the ‘country method’ for the ‘capital method’.
S tem nikakor ni ugotovilo, da edino omejitev pristojnosti zakonodajalca pomeni obstoj zadostnega prehodnega obdobja, kot to navaja pritožnik, temveč je nasprotno preverilo, v skladu z razlogovanjem, podobnim tistemu v točkah od 51 do 54 te sodbe, ali je zakonodajalec Skupnosti kr�il načelo enakega obravnavanja, s tem da je metodo „države“ zamenjal z metodo „glavnega mesta“.
When the paragraph at issue is read in its proper context, it is therefore clear that the reasoning of the Court of First Instance is not based on the premiss that, in restructuring the pension scheme, the Community legislature was bound by the principles of legal certainty and acquired rights but not by the principle of equal treatment.
Iz besedila, glede na navedeni primer, izpodbijane točke izhaja, da je torej očitno, da razlogovanje Sodi�ča prve stopnje ne temelji na predpostavki, v skladu s katero je v okviru organizacije pokojninske ureditve zakonodajalec Skupnosti omejen z načeloma pravne varnosti in pridobljenih pravic, ne pa z načelom enakega obravnavanja.
It follows from the foregoing that the first part of the sole ground of appeal, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment and the obligation to state reasons, which is binding on the Community judicature, must be rejected as unfounded.
Iz navedenega izhaja, da je treba prvi del enega samega tožbenega razloga pritožbe, ki se nana�a na kr�itev načela enakega obravnavanja in obveznosti obrazložitve, naložene sodi�čem Skupnosti, kot neutemeljenega zavrniti.
The findings of the Court of First Instance concerning the fourth argument, alleging discrimination in comparison with pensioners residing in one of the ‘less expensive’ Member States on the basis of the introduction of a minimum correction coefficient of 100%
Presoja Sodi�ča prve stopnje glede četrte trditve v zvezi z obstojem diskriminacije v razmerju do upokojencev, ki prebivajo v eni izmed „cenej�ih“ držav članic, zaradi uvedbe najnižjega korekcijskega koeficienta 100 % a) Trditve strank
The appellant claims that, contrary to what was held at paragraphs 132 to 135 of the judgment under appeal, he can establish an interest in bringing proceedings.
Pritožnik trdi, da ima v nasprotju s tem, kar je bilo ugotovljeno v točkah od 132 do 135 izpodbijane sodbe, pravni interes.
He disputes that such an interest can flow only from the enrichment of pensioners living in a ‘less expensive’ Member State at the expense of pensioners residing in an ‘expensive’ Member State and states that his criticism is based on infringement of the ‘principle of equality of purchasing power’.
Izpodbija dejstvo, da bi ta interes lahko izhajal le iz obogatitve upokojencev, ki prebivajo v „cenej�i“ državi, v �kodo upokojencev, ki prebivajo v „dragi“ državi, pri čemer poudarja, da je njegova kritika utemeljena z o�kodovanjem „načela enake kupne moči“.
Even if it were necessary to consider the relationship between the benefits paid to one group of pensioners and those paid to another group, it would have to be concluded that the cost incurred in applying the minimum correction coefficient of 100% is ‘compensated for’ by the introduction of the ‘country method’.
Ob predpostavki, da se je sicer treba vpra�ati o obstoju povezav, ki obstajajo med izplačili, izplačanimi eni skupini upokojencev, in izplačili izplačanimi drugi skupini, je treba ugotoviti, da je stro�ek, ki nastane z uporabo najnižjega korekcijskega koeficienta 100 %, „nadome�čen“ z uvedbo metode „države“.
With regard to the finding made by the Court of First Instance at paragraph 136 of the judgment under appeal that the introduction of a minimum correction coefficient of 100% cannot in any event be characterised as manifestly arbitrary or inappropriate, the appellant claims that the simple reference to the legislature’s wide power and to the objective of bringing the transitional arrangements into line with the definitive rules cannot justify that conclusion.
Glede ugotovitve Sodi�ča prve stopnje iz točke 136 izpodbijane sodbe, v skladu s katero uvedbe najnižjega korekcijskega koeficienta 100 % v nobenem primeru ne moremo �teti za očitno samovoljno in neprimerno, pritožnik trdi, da enostavno sklicevanje na �iroka pooblastila zakonodajalca in na namen zbliževanja prehodne ureditve s končno ureditvijo ne upravičuje tega sklepa.
In addition, no transitional arrangements were made for pensioners residing in ‘less expensive’ countries.
Poleg tega za upokojence, ki prebivajo v „cenej�ih“ državah, ni bila vzpostavljena nobena prehodna ureditev.
There is no objective justification in the nature or the substance of the transitional arrangements for the differentiation resulting from the fact that the introduction of a minimum correction coefficient conferred upon those pensioners benefits which substantially exceeded the cost of living in their place of residence.
Razlikovanje, ki nastane zaradi dejstva, da pravilo, ki uvaja najnižji korekcijski koeficient, omogoča tem upokojencem prejemanje izplačil, ki bistveno presegajo življenjske stro�ke v kraju njihovega prebivali�ča, pa ne more biti utemeljeno glede na lastnosti in značilnosti prehodne ureditve.
The Commission and the Council consider that the Court of First Instance was correct in declaring the appellant’s argument inadmissible.
Komisija in Svet menita, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje trditev pritožnika pravilno razglasilo za nedopustno.
They contend that, even if the Court of First Instance had considered the argument well founded, the consequence would have been a reduction in the amount of the pension paid to pensioners residing in ‘less expensive’ Member States, which would not have made any change whatsoever in the appellant’s situation.
V zvezi s tem trdita, da bi tudi v primeru, da bi Sodi�če prve stopnje presodilo, da je ta trditev utemeljena, to za upokojence, ki prebivajo v „cenej�ih“ državah članicah, pomenilo zmanj�anje zneska njihovih pokojnin, kar ne bi v ničemer spremenilo položaja pritožnika.
In the alternative, they contend that, by aligning the transitional arrangements with the definitive rules for a large number of Member States and to the advantage of pensioners residing in ‘less expensive’ Member States, the legislature made a consistent and appropriate choice.
Podredno trdita, da se je zakonodajalec s prilagajanjem prihodne ureditve končni ureditvi za veliko držav članic in v korist upokojencev, ki prebivajo v „revnej�ih“ državah članicah, primerno odločil.
The Council points out that, for that group of pensioners, there were no legitimate expectations to be protected, which explains why no transitional measures were necessary for them.
Svet poudarja, da za zadnjenavedene upokojence ni pravno utemeljenih pričakovanj, ki jih je treba varovati, kar pojasnjuje, da glede njih prehodni ukrepi niso bili potrebni.
The criticisms of the grounds on which the Court of First Instance, in the judgment under appeal, rejected the appellant’s argument alleging discrimination by comparison with pensioners residing in one of the ‘less expensive’ Member States as a result of the introduction of a minimum correction coefficient of 100% relate both to that Court’s findings on the admissibility of that argument and its examination of the substance of the argument.
Kritike razlogov izpodbijane sodbe, s katerimi je Sodi�če prve stopnje zavrnilo trditev tožeče stranke, ki se nana�a na diskriminacijo v razmerju do upokojencev, ki prebivajo v eni od „cenej�ih“ držav članic, nastalo zaradi uvedbe najnižjega korekcijskega koeficienta 100 %, so povezane tako s presojo Sodi�ča prve stopnje v zvezi z dopustnostjo te trditve, kot s preučitvijo te trditve v temelju.
In fact, the appellant is seeking to show that, contrary to what the Court of First Instance held, that argument is admissible and well founded.
Pritožnik namreč sku�a dokazati, da je v nasprotju s tem, kar je presodilo Sodi�če prve stopnje, ta trditev dopustna in utemeljena.
The Commission contends that the Court of First Instance should have declared the argument inadmissible of its own motion, since it was put forward by the appellant for the first time only in his reply in the proceedings at first instance and is therefore a new argument.
Komisija trdi, da bi Sodi�če prve stopnje po uradni dolžnosti moralo trditev razglasiti za nedopustno, saj jo je pritožnik prvič predlagal �ele v repliki v okviru postopka na prvi stopnji, tako da gre za novo trditev.
It is sufficient to note in that regard that, as the Advocate General pointed out at points 103 and 104 of his Opinion, the argument in question appeared, albeit in embryonic form, in the part of the application alleging misuse of powers and
V zvezi s tem zadostuje ugotovitev, kot je generalni pravobranilec ugotovil v točkah 103 in 104 sklepnih predlogov, da je bil ta argument vsebovan, čeprav le v zametkih, v tistem delu tožbe, v katerem je pritožnik zatrjeval prekoračenje pooblastil, kr�itev
CAMPOLI v COMMISSION infringement of the principle of proportionality and the obligation to state reasons.
CAMPOLI PROTI KOMISIJI načela sorazmernosti in obveznosti obrazložitve.
As to whether the appellant’s criticisms are well founded, consideration must first be given to those made in regard to paragraph 136 of the judgment under appeal, in which the Court of First Instance, having concluded that the argument in question was inadmissible on the basis that the appellant had failed to establish an interest in bringing proceedings, held that, in any event, the introduction of a minimum correction coefficient of 100% cannot be characterised as manifestly arbitrary or inappropriate, since that rule was adopted in order to bring the transitional arrangements protecting the correction coefficients applicable to pensions as far as possible into line with the definitive rules, which abolish them.
Glede utemeljenosti kritik pritožnika je treba najprej preučiti tiste, ki se nana�ajo na točko 136 izpodbijane sodbe, v kateri je Sodi�če prve stopnje, potem ko je ugotovilo nedopustnost zadevne trditve, zato ker pritožnik ni imel pravnega interesa, presodilo, da uvedbe najnižjega korekcijskega koeficienta 100 % v nobenem primeru ni mogoče �teti za očitno samovoljno ali neustrezno, saj je bilo to pravilo sprejeto zaradi največjega možnega zbliževanja prehodne ureditve, z ohranitvijo korekcijskih koeficientov, ki veljajo za pokojnine, z dokončno ureditvijo, ki jih odpravlja.
It is only if that finding were vitiated by an error of law that that part of the plea relied on by the appellant could ultimately succeed.
Dejansko bi bil namreč le ob predpostavki, da gre pri tej ugotovitvi za napačno uporabo prava, ta del tožbenega razloga, na katerega se sklicuje pritožnik, končno upo�teven.
That, however, is not the case.
Vendar to ni tako.
As the Court of First Instance correctly pointed out, the introduction, as part of the transitional arrangements, of a minimum correction coefficient of 100% simply anticipates the abolition of correction coefficients for certain pensioners provided for under the new rules.
Kot je pravilno ugotovilo Sodi�če prve stopnje, uvedba, v okviru prehodne ureditve, najnižjega korekcijskega koeficienta 100 %, pomeni le predčasno odpravo korekcijskih koeficientov, ki je predvidena s končno ureditvijo.
Whether the transitional rules are in conformity with the principle of equal treatment must therefore be analysed from that perspective.
S tega vidika je torej treba preučiti skladnost prehodne ureditve z načelom enakega obravnavanja.
The decision of the Community legislature to reform the pension scheme by abolishing the correction coefficients applicable to pensions is not incompatible with the principle of equal treatment.
Ugotoviti pa je treba, da odločitev zakonodajalca Skupnosti, da spremeni ureditev pokojnin z odpravo korekcijskih koeficientov, ki se zanje uporabljajo, ni v neskladju z načelom enakega obravnavanja.
Although the former pension scheme, based on a system of correction coefficients and, consequently, on a certain compensation for loss of purchasing power according to the Member State in which the pensioner resided, constituted an appropriate way of implementing that principle, it cannot be inferred from this that any other system is incompatible with that principle.
Čeprav drži, da stara pokojninska ureditev, ki temelji na sistemu korekcijskih koeficientov in, posledično, na določenem izenačenju kupne moči glede na državo članico, v kateri upokojenec prebiva, pomeni ustrezno sredstvo za izvr�evanje navedenega načela, iz tega ni mogoče sklepati, da je vsak drug sistem v neskladju s tem načelom.
As the Council rightly pointed out, a pension scheme intended to create equality of purchasing power is just one possible way of ensuring compliance with the principle of equal treatment.
Kot je to pravilno ugotovil Svet, je namreč pokojninski sistem, ki določa enako kupno moč, le eno izmed možnih sredstev za spo�tovanje načela enakega obravnavanja.
That principle is just as equally complied with by a scheme under which pensioners receive, for an equivalent contribution, the same nominal pension, which is also, as the Commission noted, generally the case under existing pension schemes in the Member States and in other international organisations.
To načelo je upo�tevano tudi s sistemom, v skladu s katerim upokojenci ob enakovrednem prispevanju prejmejo enak nominalni znesek pokojnine, kar je sicer, kot je ugotovila Komisija, pravilo obstoječih pokojninskih ureditev držav članic in drugih mednarodnih organizacij.
Since the definitive pension scheme under the new Staff Regulations, inasmuch as it no longer pursues the objective of guaranteeing a certain equality of purchasing power among officials, regardless of their place of residence, is therefore compatible with the principle of equal treatment, the transitional arrangements, which simply anticipate the principle whereby a ‘single’ amount pension is paid to pensioners for whom that principle is favourable, cannot constitute discrimination.
Glede na to, da je končna pokojninska ureditev, ki izhaja iz novih Kadrovskih predpisov, zato ker ne sledi več cilju zagotovitve določene enakovrednosti kupne moči med upokojenci ne glede na njihov kraj prebivanja, v skladu z načelom enakega obravnavanja, prehodna ureditev, ki le predčasno uvaja načelo pokojnine v „enotnem“ znesku v korist upokojencev, ki jim je načelo naklonjeno, ne ustvarja diskriminacije.
It must therefore be held that the Court of First Instance was correct in finding that the appellant’s argument alleging discrimination by comparison with pensioners residing in one of the ‘less expensive’ Member States was unfounded, since the transitional arrangements introduced a minimum correction coefficient of 100%.
Ugotoviti je torej treba, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje trditev pritožnika, ki se nana�a na diskriminacijo v razmerju do upokojencev, ki prebivajo v eni od „cenej�ih“ držav članic, nastalo zaradi uvedbe najnižjega korekcijskega koeficienta 100 %, pravilno razglasilo za nedopustno.
Under those circumstances, there is no further need to consider the objection that that argument is inadmissible since the appellant does not have locus standi.
V teh okoli�činah Sodi�ču ni treba več obravnavati ugovora, v skladu s katerim bi bila navedena trditev nedopustna, zaradi dejstva, da pritožnik nima pravnega interesa.
It follows from the foregoing that this part of the sole plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment and failure to have regard to the concept of locus standi, must be rejected.
Iz navedenega izhaja, da je treba ta del edinega tožbenega razloga, ki se nana�a na kr�itev načela enakega obravnavanja in na pojem pravnega interesa, zavrniti.
The findings made by the Court of First Instance on the third argument, concerning discrimination by comparison with pensioners living in Belgium
Presoja Sodi�ča prve stopnje glede tretje trditve, ki se nana�a na diskriminacijo v razmerju do upokojencev, ki prebivajo v Belgiji a) Trditve strank
The appellant claims that, contrary to what was held in the judgment under appeal, the new pension scheme is linked to the cost of living in Brussels.
Pritožnik v zvezi s tem trdi, v nasprotju s tem, kar je ugotovljeno v izpodbijani sodbi, da nova pokojninska ureditev pomeni povezanost z življenjskimi stro�ki v Bruslju.
Article 3 of Annex XI to the new Staff Regulations states that the adjustment of remuneration and pensions is to be based on a series of factors set out in Article 1 thereof, which include changes in the cost of living for Brussels (Brussels International Index).
Tako člen 3 priloge XI k novim Kadrovskim predpisom pojasnjuje, da prilagoditev osebnih prejemkov in pokojnin temelji na celi vrsti elementov, določenih v členu 1 te priloge, med katerimi je tudi razvoj življenjskih stro�kov v Bruslju (bruseljski mednarodni indeks).
The fact that no correction coefficient is applicable in Belgium, as provided in Article 3(5) of Annex XI to the new Staff Regulations, means that a de facto correction coefficient of 100% is applied to pensions.
Dejstvo, da se za Belgijo ne uporabi noben korekcijski koeficient, tako kot je določeno v členu 3(5) priloge XI k novim Kadrovskim predpisom, pomeni, da se pokojnine dejansko ponderirajo s korekcijskim koeficientom 100 %.
Consequently, the income of pensioners living in Belgium is fixed solely by taking account of the cost of living in Brussels, the capital of that Member State.
Zato bi bili prejemki upokojencev, ki prebivajo v Belgiji, določeni le ob upo�tevanju življenjskih stro�kov Bruslja, glavnega mesta te države članice.