natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In that regard, such a measure, in so far as it introduces an obligation to invest in cinematographic ¤lms and ¤lms made for television the original language of which is one of the ocial languages of that Member State, appears appropriate to ensure that such an objective is achieved.
Ker sta jezik in kultura nerazdružljivo povezana, ni mogoče šteti, da morajo biti poleg cilja države članice, da varuje in spodbuja enega ali več svojih uradnih jezikov, določena še druga kulturna merila, da se lahko upraviči omejitev ene od temeljnih svoboščin, zagotovljenih s Pogodbo.
In addition, it does not appear, in the Court’s view, that such a measure goes beyond what is necessary to achieve that objective.
Tak ukrep tudi ne presega tega, kar je potrebno za uresničitev zastavljenega cilja, zgolj zato, ker so upravičenci do zadevnega nanciranja večinoma produkcijske hiše s sedežem v tej državi članici.
Since that measure a¥ects, ¤rst of all, only 3% of the operating revenue of the operators, the percentage cannot be considered disproportionate in relation to the objective pursued.
Dejstvo, da lahko merilo, na katerem temelji navedeni ukrep, in sicer jezikovno merilo, pomeni ugodnost za produkcijske hiše, katerih dela so v jeziku, na katerega se nanaša navedeno merilo, in ki zato lahko v praksi največkrat izhajajo iz države članice, v kateri je ta jezik uradni jezik, se izkaže za neločljivo povezano z zastavljenim ciljem.
Furthermore, such a measure does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the objective pursued by reason of the mere fact that it does not lay down criteria which would allow the works concerned to be classi¤ed as‘cultural productions’.
Tak položaj ne more biti sam po sebi dokaz za nesorazmernost navedenega ukrepa, ker sicer priznanje, da je cilj države članice varovati in spodbujati enega ali več svojih uradnih jezikov nujni razlog v splošnem interesu, ne bi imelo smisla.
Since language and culture are intrinsically linked, the view cannot be taken that the objective pursued by a Member State of defending and promoting one or several of its ocial languages must of necessity be accompanied by other cultural criteria in order for it to justify a restriction on one of the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Treaty.
Sodišče je v zvezi s členom 12 ES pojasnilo, da se ta določba samostojno uporablja le v položajih, ki jih ureja pravo Skupnosti, vendar zanje Pogodba ne določa posebnega pravila o prepovedi diskriminacije.
Nor does such a measure go beyond what is necessary to achieve the objective pursued by reason of the mere fact that the bene¤ciaries of the ¤nancing concerned are mostly cinema production undertakings in that Member State.
Načelo prepovedi diskriminacije je bilo na področju prostega gibanja delavcev, svobode ustanavljanja, svobode opravljanja storitev in prostega pretoka kapitala namreč določeno s členi 39(2) ES, 43 ES, 49 ES in 56 ES.
The fact that the criterion on which that measure is based, namely the linguistic criterion, may constitute an advantage for cinema production undertakings which work in the language covered by that criterion and which, accordingly, may in practice mostly comprise undertakings established in the Member State of which the language constitutes an ocial language appears inherent to the objective pursued.
Ker iz navedenega izhaja, da zadevni ukrep ni v nasprotju z navedenimi določbami Pogodbe, tudi ni mogoče šteti, da je v nasprotju s členom 12 ES.
Such a situation cannot, of itself, constitute proof of the disproportionate nature of that measure without rendering nugatory the recognition, as an overriding reason in the public interest, of the objective pursued by a Member State of defending and promoting one or several of its ocial languages.
S tega področja je treba navesti zadevo PAGO International (sodba z dne 6. oktobra 2009, C-301/07), v kateri so bili pojasnjeni pogoji, ki jih mora izpolnjevati znamka, da bi imela „ugled“ v smislu člena 9(1)(c) Uredbe (ES) št. 40/9429. Sodišče je sklepalo po analogiji s sodbo Davido§ (sodba z dne 9. januarja 2003, C-292/00, Recueil, str.
The Court noted, with regard to Article 12 EC, that that provision applies independently only to situations governed by Community law for which the Treaty lays down no speci¤c rules of non-discrimination.
I-389) in je najprej menilo, da ne glede na besedilo navedenega člena 9(1)(c) in ob upoštevanju splošne sistematike in ciljev sistema, v katerega se ta člen uvršča, varstvo znamk Skupnosti, ki imajo ugled, v primeru uporabe znaka za enake ali podobne proizvode ali storitve ne more biti manjše kot v primeru uporabe znaka za proizvode ali storitve, ki si niso podobni.
However, in relation to the freedom of movement for workers, the right of establishment, the freedom to provide services and the free movement of capital, the principle of non-discrimination was implemented by Articles 39(2) EC, 43 EC, 49 EC and 56 EC respectively.
Zato po mnenju Sodišča ta člen velja za znamko Skupnosti, ki ima ugled, tudi v zvezi s¥proizvodi ali storitvami, ki so podobni tistim, za katere je navedena znamka registrirana.
Since it follows from the fore going that the measure at issue does not appear contrary to those provisions of the Treaty, it cannot be considered contrary to Article 12 EC either.
Sodišče je nato presodilo, da mora znamko Skupnosti, da bi zanjo veljalo varstvo iz te določbe, na znatnem delu ozemlja Skupnosti poznati znaten del javnosti, ki jo proizvodi ali storitve, ki jih znamka zajema, zadevajo, in da je glede na ugled znamke PAGO International na celotnem ozemlju države članice, in sicer Avstrije, to ozemlje mogoče šteti za znaten del ozemlja Skupnosti.
In this ¤eld, Case C-301/07 PAGO International (judgment of 6 October 2009) merits consideration.
Na tem področju se je Sodišče srečalo z novimi problematikami. V zadevi Akavan Erityisalojen Keskusliitto AEK in drugi (sodba z dne 10. septembra 2009, C-44/08) se je prvič izreklo o obsegu
Court of Justice a ‘reputation’ for the purposes of Article 9(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (29).
Razvoj in dejavnost obveznosti informiranja in posvetovanja, določene v členu 2 Direktive 98/59/ES o približevanju
Drawing an analogy with Case C-292/00 Davido§ [2003] ECR I-389, the Court held, ¤rst, that, notwithstanding the wording of Article 9(1)(c) and in the light of the overall scheme and objectives of the system of which Article 9(1)(c) of the regulation is part, the protection accorded to Community trade marks with a reputation cannot be less where a sign is used for identical goods and services than where a sign is used for non-similar goods or services.
V zvezi z določitvijo osebe, ki mora izpolniti obveznost posvetovanja, je Sodišče poudarilo, da je edini naslovnik obveznosti informiranja, posvetovanja in obveščanja delodajalec.
Therefore, in the Court’s view, that article also bene-¤ts a Community trade mark with a reputation in the case of goods or services similar to those for which that mark is registered.
Podjetje, ki obvladuje delodajalca, nima lastnosti delodajalca, čeprav bi glede zadnjega lahko sprejelo zavezujoče odločitve.
The Court then held that, in order to bene¤t from the protection a¥orded in that provision, a Community trade mark must be known by a signi¤cant part of the public concerned by the products or services covered by that trade mark, in a substantial part of the territory of the Community, and that, in view of the reputation of the mark PAGO International throughout the territory of a Member State, namely Austria, that territory could be considered to constitute a substantial part of the territory of the Community.
Pri skupini podjetij, ki jo sestavlja matična družba in ena ali več hčerinskih družb, obveznost posvetovanja s predstavniki delavcev za hčerinsko družbo, ki je delodajalka, nastane šele, ko se ta hčerinska družba, v kateri obstaja možnost, da se bodo izvedli kolektivni odpusti, opredeli.
In this ¤eld the Court has been faced with novel issues.Case C-44/08 Akavan Erityisalojen Keskuslitto AEK and Others (judgment of 10 September 2009) provided the Court with the opportunity to give judgment, for the ¤rst time, on the obligation to provide information and hold consultations laid down in Article 2 of Directive 98/59/EC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies (30).
V zvezi s končanjem postopka posvetovanja je Sodišče pojasnilo, da mora pri skupini podjetij hčerinska družba, na katero se nanašajo kolektivni odpusti, postopek posvetovanja končati, preden na podlagi morebitnih neposrednih navodil svoje matične družbe odpove pogodbe delavcev, na katere se ti odpusti nanašajo.
In addition, it noted that the time at which that obligation arises does not depend on whether the employer is already able to supply to the workers’ representatives all the information required in Article 2(3)(b) of Directive 98/59.
31 na vprašanje, ali Direktiva 98/59 daje delavcem, ki želijo izpodbijati kršitev postopka informiranja in posvetovanja, posamično pravico ali ne.
So far as concerns designation of the person responsible for the obligation to hold consultations, the Court stated that the only party on whom the obligations to inform, consult and notify are imposed is the employer.
Po mnenju Sodišča je pravica do informiranja in posvetovanja, določena v Direktivi 98/59, zlasti v njenem členu 2, uvedena v korist delavcev kot skupnosti in ima torej kolektivno naravo.
An undertaking which controls the employer, even if it can take decisions which are binding on the latter, does not have the status of employer.
Vendar pa je raven zaščite te kolektivne pravice, ki se zahteva s členom 6 te direktive, dosežena, kadar je z upoštevno nacionalno ureditvijo predstavnikom delavcev podeljeno procesno upravičenje, za katero niso določene omejitve ali posebni pogoji.
In the case of a group of undertakings consisting of a parent company and one or more subsidiaries, the obligation to hold consultations with the workers’ representatives falls on the subsidiary which has the status of employer only once that subsidiary, within which collective redundancies may be made, has been identi¤ed.
Člen 6 Direktive 98/59 v povezavi s členom 2¥te direktive je torej treba razlagati tako, da ne nasprotuje nacionalni ureditvi, s katero so urejeni postopki, katerih namen je omogočiti predstavnikom delavcev in delavcem kot posameznikom, da zahtevajo nadzor spoštovanja obveznosti, določenih v tej direktivi, omejuje pa procesno upravičenje posameznih delavcev v zvezi z očitki, ki jih lahko navajajo, in ga pogojuje z zahtevo, da morajo predstavniki delavcev ugovore predhodno predložiti delodajalcu, zadevni delavec pa mora delodajalca predhodno obvestiti, da uveljavlja nespoštovanje postopka informiranja in posvetovanja.
As regards the conclusion of the consultation procedure, the Court stated that, in the case of a group of undertakings, the consultation procedure must be concluded by the subsidiary a¥ect-ed by the collective redundancies before that subsidiary, on the direct instructions of its parent company or otherwise, terminates the contracts of the employees who are to be a¥ected by those redundancies.
Sodišče je prav tako spomnilo, da mora nacionalno sodišče pri uporabi nacionalnega prava na podlagi načela skladne razlage nacionalnega prava upoštevati vse predpise nacionalnega prava in ga razlagati kar se da ob upoštevanju besedila in cilja direktive, da bi se dosegel rezultat, ki je v¥skladu s ciljem, ki mu sledi direktiva.
1).(30) Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 (OJ 1998 L 225, p. 16).
16).Glej prejšnjo opombo.
In Case C-12/08 Mono Car Styling (judgment of 16 July 2009), the Court ruled, here too for the ¤rst
V zadevi Meerts (sodba z dne 22. oktobra 2009, C-116/08) je Sodišče pojasnilo pravice delavca – katerega pogodba o zaposlitvi je bila odpovedana, ko je bil na starševskem dopustu v¥obliki krajšega delovnega časa – kakor izhajajo iz Direktive 96/34/ES o okvirnem sporazumu o¥starševskem dopustu, sklenjenem med UNICE, CEEP in ETUC32.
31) grants an individual right to employees who time, on the question whether Directive 98/59 ( wish to query whether the information and consultation procedure has been complied with.
Na podlagi ugotovitve, da klavzula 2, točka 6, navedenega okvirnega sporazuma določa, da se pravice delavca, ki so pridobljene ali so v postopku pridobitve na dan začetka starševskega dopusta, ohranijo take, kakršne so, do konca starševskega dopusta, je Sodišče presodilo, da je iz besedila te določbe in njenega sobesedila razvidno, da je cilj te določbe preprečiti izgubo ali zmanjšanje pravic iz delovnega razmerja, ki so pridobljene ali so v postopku pridobitve in ki jih delavec lahko uveljavlja ob začetku starševskega dopusta, in zagotoviti, da bo po njegovem izteku glede teh pravic v enakem položaju kot pred dopustom.
In its view, the right to information and consultation provided for in Directive 98/59, in particular in Article 2, is intended to bene¤t workers as a collective group and is therefore collective in nature.
Ob upoštevanju cilja enakega obravnavanja moških in žensk, ki mu sledi okvirni sporazum o starševskem dopustu, je treba obveznost upoštevanja pravic, ki so pridobljene ali so v postopku pridobitve, razumeti tako, kot da izraža posebej pomembno načelo socialnega prava Skupnosti, ki ga ni mogoče razlagati ozko.
The level of protection of that collective right required by Article 6 of the directive is reached where the applicable national rules give workers’ representatives a right to act which is not limited by spe-ci¤c conditions.
Iz ciljev okvirnega sporazuma o starševskem dopustu je razvidno, da pojem„pravice, ki so pridobljene ali v postopku pridobitve“ iz okvirnega sporazuma vključuje vse pravice in ugodnosti, v gotovini ali v naravi, ki neposredno ali posredno izhajajo iz delovnega razmerja in jih lahko delavec uveljavlja v razmerju do delodajalca na dan, ko začne starševski dopust.
Article 6 of Directive 98/59, read in conjunction with Article 2, is to be interpreted, therefore, as not precluding national rules which introduce procedures intended to permit both workers’ representatives and the workers themselves as individuals to ensure compliance with the obligations laid down in that directive, but which limit the individual right of action of workers in regard to the complaints which may be raised and make that right subject to the requirement that workers’ representatives should ¤rst have raised objections with the employer and that the worker concerned has informed the employer in advance of his intention to query whether the information and consultation procedure has been complied with.
Med temi pravicami in ugodnostmi so vse tiste, ki so povezane s pogoji zaposlitve, kot je pravica delavca, zaposlenega s polnim delovnim časom, ki izrablja starševski dopust v obliki krajšega delovnega časa, do odpovednega roka – če delodajalec enostransko odpove pogodbo o zaposlitvi za nedoločen čas – katerega trajanje se določi glede na delovno dobo delavca v podjetju in katerega cilj je olajšati iskanje nove zaposlitve.
The Court also noted that, in applying domestic law, the national court is required, applying the principle of interpreting national law in conformity with Community law, to consider all the rules of national law and to interpret them, so far as possible, in the light of the wording and purpose of a directive in order to achieve an outcome consistent with the objective pursued by the directive.
Vse te pravice in ugodnosti bi bile ob neupoštevanju zakonsko določenega odpovednega roka ob odpovedi pogodbe o zaposlitvi med starševskim dopustom v obliki krajšega delovnega časa izničene, če bi delavec, ki je zaposlen s polnim delovnim časom, izgubil pravico, da se mu odškodnina zaradi odpovedi pogodbe o zaposlitvi, ki mu pripada, določi na podlagi plače, določene v njegovi pogodbi o zaposlitvi.
Accordingly, since Article 2 of Directive 98/59 precludes national rules which reduce the obligations of an employer who intends to proceed with collective redundancies below those laid down in that article, it is the task of the national court to ensure, within the limits of its jurisdiction, that the obligations binding such an employer are not reduced below those laid down in Article 2 of that directive.
Tako bi lahko nacionalna zakonodaja, ki bi ob starševskem dopustu vodila do zmanjšanja pravic iz delovnega razmerja, delavca odvrnila od izrabe takega dopusta in spodbujala delodajalca, da pogodbe o zaposlitvi odpove najprej delavcem, ki so na starševskem dopustu. To bi bilo neposredno v nasprotju z namenom okvirnega sporazuma o starševskem dopustu, katerega eden od ciljev je čim bolje uskladiti družinsko in poklicno življenje.
In Case C-116/08 Meerts (judgment of 22 October 2009), the Court was presented with the opportunity to de¤ne more precisely the rights of an employee who has been dismissed while on parttime parental leave, as set out in Directive 96/34/EC on the framework agreement on parental leave concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC (32).
Sodišče je na podlagi tega presodilo, da okvirni sporazum o starševskem dopustu nasprotuje temu, da se odškodnina – če delodajalec brez utemeljenega razloga ali ob neupoštevanju zakonsko določenega odpovednega roka enostransko odpove pogodbo o zaposlitvi delavcu, ki je zaposlen za nedoločen čas in s polnim delovnim časom, medtem ko je ta na starševskem dopustu v obliki krajšega delovnega časa – ki jo je treba izplačati temu delavcu, določi na podlagi nižje plače, ki jo prejema ob odpovedi pogodbe o zaposlitvi.
Having regard to the objective of equal treatment between men and women which is pursued by the framework agreement on parental leave, the obligation to respect rights acquired or being acquired must be interpreted as articulating a particularly important principle of Community social law which cannot be interpreted restrictively.
V zadevi Hütter (sodba z dne 18. junija 2009, C-88/08) je Sodišče presodilo, da nacionalna zakonodaja, ki pri določanju razreda, v katerega so razvrščeni pogodbeni uslužbenci v javnem sektorju države članice, ne upošteva obdobij zaposlitve pred 18. letom, diskriminira na podlagi starosti, česar ni mogoče legitimno upravičiti, ter je zato v nasprotju s pravom Skupnosti.
(32) Council Directive 96/34/EC of 3 June 1996 (OJ 1996 L 145, p.
Direktiva Sveta 96/34/ES z dne 3. junija 1996 (UL L 145, str.
15 December 1997 (OJ 1998 L 10, p. 24).
4), kakor je bila spremenjena z Direktivo Sveta 97/75/ES z dne 15. decembra 1997 (UL 1998, L 10, str. 24).
Page 45
Sodišče
Court of Justice entitled to claim from the employer at the date on which parental leave starts.
V sodbi je ugotovilo, da taka ureditev, ki uvaja različno obravnavanje oseb na podlagi starosti, v¥kateri so pridobile poklicne izkušnje, pomeni različno obravnavanje na podlagi merila starosti
Such rights and bene ¤ts include all those relating to employment conditions, such as the right of a full-time worker on parttime parental leave to a period of notice in the event of the employer’s unilateral termination of a contract of inde¤nite duration, the length of which depends on the worker’s length of service in the company and the aim of which is to facilitate the search for a new job.
Sodišče je nato poudarilo, da sta cilja, ki jima sledi zadevna ureditev, in sicer da se splošne srednje šole ne obravnavajo manj ugodno od poklicnih ter da se spodbuja vključevanje mladih s poklicno izobrazbo na trg dela, legitimna cilja v smislu člena 6(1) Direktive 2000/78.
National legislation which would result in the rights ªowing from the employment relationship being reduced in the event of parental leave could discourage workers from taking such leave and could encourage employers to dismiss workers who are on parental leave rather than other workers.
Glede cilja spodbujanja vključevanja mladih s poklicno izobrazbo na trg dela pa je Sodišče poudarilo, da neupoštevanje izkušenj, pridobljenih pred 18. letom, brez razlike velja za vse pogodbene uslužbence v javnem sektorju, ne glede na starost, ko so bili sprejeti v službo.
This would run directly counter to the aim of the framework agreement on parental leave, one of the objectives of which is to make it easier to reconcile working and family life.
Ker to pravilo ne upošteva starosti oseb ob sprejetju v službo, torej ni primerno za spodbujanje skupine delavcev nizke starosti k vstopanju na trg dela.
The Court came to the conclusion that the framework agreement on parental leave precludes, where an employer unilaterally terminates a worker’s full-time employment contract of inde¤nite duration, without urgent cause or without observing the statutory period of notice, whilst the worker is on parttime parental leave, the compensation to be paid to the worker from being determined on the basis of the reduced salary being received when the dismissal takes place.
Sodišče je na podlagi tega sklenilo, da diskriminacije, uvedene z zadevno ureditvijo, ni mogoče šteti za upravičeno in da je torej v nasprotju s členi 1, 2 in 6 Direktive 2000/78.
In its judgment, it found that such legislation, which establishes a di¥erence in treatment between persons based on the age at which they acquired their professional experience, establishes a difference in treatment directly based on the criterion of age, within the meaning of Article 2(1) and (2)(a) of Directive 2000/78/EC (33).
V zadevi Komisija proti Malti (sodba z dne 10. septembra 2009, C-76/08) je Sodišče presojalo, ali, kot je trdila Komisija, Republika Malta s tem, da je od leta 2004 do leta 2007 dovoljevala pomladanski lov na prepelico in divjo grlico, ni izpolnila obveznosti iz Direktive Sveta z dne 2.¥aprila¥1979 o¥ohranjanju prosto živečih ptic (79/409/EGS)34.
The Court then noted that the objectives pursued by the legislation at issue, namely to not treat a general secondary education less favourably than a vocational education and to promote integration into the labour market of young people who have pursued a vocational education, are legitimate objectives for the purposes of Article 6(1) of Directive 2000/78.
V skladu s členom 7(1) in (4) navedene direktive se namreč ti vrsti ne smeta loviti v času vrnitve na gnezditvena območja. Vendar pa člen 9(1) iste direktive določa sistem odstopanj od teh prepovedi, če ni druge zadovoljive rešitve.
None the less, the Court found that those two objectives appeared contradictory in so far as the contested measure could not promote them both at the same time.
Sodišče je poudarilo, da čeprav sta ti vrsti jeseni v zadevnih letih dejansko bili na Malti, pa so v¥tem obdobju lovci ujeli zgolj zanemarljivo število ptic.
In those circumstances, that criterion did not appear appropriate for achieving the aim.
Sodišče je menilo, da v teh zelo posebnih okoliščinah jesenskega lova na ti vrsti ni mogoče šteti za zadovoljivo rešitev na Malti, alternativno začetku pomladanskega lova.
As regards the aim of promoting integration into the labour market of young people who have pursued a vocational education, the Court pointed out that non-accreditation of experience acquired before the age of 18 applied without distinction to all contractual public servants, whatever the age at which they were recruited.
Vendar ta ugotovitev še zdaleč ne omogoča, da se prosto dovoli pomladanski lov, temveč dopušča začetek lova samo, če je to nujno in če drugi cilji, ki jim sledi navedena direktiva, niso ogroženi.
Since it did not take into account people’s age at the time of their recruitment, that rule was not therefore appropriate
Tako je Sodišče menilo, da začetek pomladanske lovne dobe, ko se ti vrsti vračata na gnezditvena območja, zaradi česar je smrtnost prepelice in divje grlice trikrat oziroma osemkrat
Moreover, in autumn, only a restricted part of Malta is visited by those birds. Finally, the population of those two species of bird is not below a satisfactory level.
Sodišče večja v¥primerjavi s tisto iz jesenske lovne dobe, ni rešitev, ki bi bila primerna in strogo sorazmerna s ciljem ohranjanja ogroženih živalskih vrst, ki mu sledi ta direktiva.