natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Commission states that it is not seeking to argue that the unlawfulness of the decisions by which it rejected Ms Girardot’s various applications has not caused damage for which compensation can be paid.
Komisija je obrazložila, da ne zagovarja trditve, da nezakonitost odločitev o zavrženju različnih prijav M.-C. Girardot ni povzročila �kode, za katero je upravičena do od�kodnine.
Indeed, it states that it accepts the idea that the loss of an opportunity to fill a post constitutes material damage.
Dejansko sprejema idejo, da izguba možnosti zaposlitve pomeni premoženjsko �kodo.
VI — The main appeal
VI – Pritožba
However, the Commission points out that the actual and certain damage suffered by the person concerned is that resulting from the failure to examine her applications, and not that resulting from a hypothetical loss of earnings during a period determined in an equally hypothetical manner.
Komisija nasprotno poudari, da dejanska in gotova �koda, ki jo je M.-C. Girardot utrpela, izhaja iz neobravnave njenih prijav, in ne iz hipotetične izgube plačila v obdobju, ki je prav tako določeno hipotetično.
The Commission bases its claim for annulment on a single plea, alleging that the method used by the Court of First Instance in the judgment under appeal to calculate the loss of opportunity constitutes an infringement of Article 236 EC and of the conditions governing the liability of the Commission, while requesting in its appeal that the Court rule on the method for calculating the
Komisija navaja en pritožbeni razlog, in sicer da metoda, ki jo je uporabilo Sodi�če prve stopnje v izpodbijani sodbi za izračun izgube možnosti, kr�i člen 236 ES in pogoje za uveljavljanje odgovornosti Komisije, ter navaja, da s svojo pritožbo želi, da Sodi�če
The Commission considers that the finding, contained in paragraph 58 of the
Komisija meni, da se glede na preudarke v točki 58 izpodbijane sodbe, da se za izračun
COMMISSION v GIRARDOT judgement under appeal, that in order to assess the extent of the damage arising from the loss of an opportunity it is appropriate to determine the difference between the earnings which Ms Girardot would have received in the event that the opportunity of having her application accepted had materialised and that which she actually received following the unlawful rejection of her application amounts to quantifying mater- ial damage which is no longer that of loss of an opportunity to be recruited and wrongly interprets the notion of loss of an opportunity as that of loss of a guarantee of obtaining a post.
KOMISIJA PROTI GIRARDOT obsega �kode zaradi izgube možnosti ugotav- lja razliko med plačilom, ki bi ga M.-C. Girardot prejemala, če bi bila njena prijava sprejeta, in tistim, ki ga je dejansko prejemala po nezakonitem zavrženju njene prijave, materialna �koda za izgubo možnosti zaposlitve ne bi kvantitativno določila, temveč bi se pojem izgube možnosti spremenil v izgubo gotovosti zaposlitve.
The Commission takes the view that it cannot be disputed that it is accorded a wide margin of discretion in matters of recruitment.
Po mnenju Komisije pa ima nedvomno veliko diskrecijsko pravico pri zaposlovanju.
in paragraph 58 of the judgment under appeal, that the amount of material damage, quantified by calculating the difference in earnings received, could, ‘if appropriate’, be assessed as a percentage representing the chance which the person concerned had of being recruited.
ki je kvantitativno določen na podlagi izračuna razlike v prejetem plačilu, oceni, „če je to ustrezno“, v obliki odstotka, ki pomeni možnost kandidatke, da bi se hipoteza o njeni zaposlitvi uresničila.
The Commission takes the view that that premiss in the reasoning put forward in the judgment under appeal shows that the Court of First Instance is seeking to quantify the damage resulting from a hypothetical loss of earnings, since it is not automatically the case (‘if appropriate’) that the person concerned lost only an opportunity of being recruited.
Ta predpostavka v utemeljitvi izpodbijane sodbe kaže po mnenju Komisije, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje hotelo kvantitativno določiti �kodo iz hipotetične izgube plačila, ker dejstvo, da je kandidatka izgubila možnost zaposlitve, ne nastopi samodejno („če je to ustrezno“).
Thirdly, the Court of First Instance quantified the likelihood of being recruited of the person concerned on the basis of uncertain conjectures.
Tretjič pa je Sodi�če prve stopnje uporabilo negotove hipoteze, da je kvantitativno določilo stopnjo verjetnosti zaposlitve kandidatke.
However, as stated in paragraph 57 of the interim judgment, the person concerned had no right to be recruited.
Kot izhaja iz točke 57 vmesne sodbe, kandidatka ni imela nobene pravice do zaposlitve.
Nevertheless, by first calculating the material damage as if the person concerned enjoyed such a right, the judgment under appeal is inconsistent with the interim judgment.
Vendar z izračunom materialne �kode, kot da bi kandidatka imela tako pravico, izpodbijana sodba nasprotuje vmesni sodbi.
The Commission takes the view that the existence of such an error of law is confirmed, first, by the fact that, in order to calculate the loss of earnings, the Court of First Instance takes into consideration the earnings received in the intervening period by the person concerned.
Komisija meni, da je taka napačna uporaba prava podkrepljena, prvič, z dejstvom, da Sodi�če prve stopnje za izračun izgube plačila upo�teva plačilo, ki ga je M.-C. Girardot prejemala v vmesnem obdobju.
However, in the event that the person concerned had, during that intervening period, taken up a post that was better paid than that which she could have obtained at the Commission during the same period, no loss of earnings would be suffered, although the person concerned would, nonetheless, have indeed suffered a loss of opportunity.
Če bi namreč v tem vmesnem obdobju opravljala delo, ki bi bilo bolje plačano kot delo pri Komisiji v istem obdobju, ne bi utrpela nobene izgube plačila, čeprav je utrpela izgubo možnosti.
The method of calculation used by the Court of First Instance is therefore illogical and liable to cause discrimination.
Metoda izračuna, ki jo je uporabilo Sodi�če prve stopnje, naj bi bila torej nelogična in diskriminatorna.
Secondly, the Commission argues that the existence of the error of law which it identifies is also confirmed by the assessment, again contained
Drugič, po mnenju Komisije je napačna uporaba prava podkrepljena z nadaljnjim mnenjem iz točke 58 izpodbijane sodbe, da se lahko znesek materialne �kode,
According to the Commission, all those considerations must lead to the conclusion that the calculation of the damage resulting from the loss of opportunity to be recruited must be founded on a basis other than that used by the Court of First Instance and cannot in any event be applied to a loss of earnings, which presupposes the existence of a guarantee (hypothetical and not certain) of being recruited.
Po mnenju Komisije bi bilo treba iz vsega navedenega zaključiti, da bi moral izračun �kode zaradi izgube možnosti zaposlitve temeljiti na drugi osnovi kot tej, ki jo je sprejelo Sodi�če prve stopnje, in da v nobenem primeru ne bi mogel biti narejen ob sklicevanju na izgubo plačila, ki predpostavlja (hipotetično in nezanesljivo) gotovost zaposlitve.
At the hearing, the Commission added that the damage resulting from the unlawful act of failing to examine an application cannot be a loss of earnings.
Na obravnavi je Komisija dodala, da �koda, ki izvira iz nezakonitega ravnanja neobravnave prijave, ne more biti izguba plačila.
Moreover, she submits that there exists, in that regard, a large number of different situations which can be dealt with only on a case-by-case basis.
V zvezi s tem med drugim obstaja ne�teto različnih položajev, ki se jih lahko obravnava samo od primera do primera.
Secondly, Ms Girardot claims that the plea alleging that the Court of First Instance is making good the loss of a guarantee and not the loss of an opportunity is inadmissible since that plea was not raised at first instance before the Court of First Instance.
Drugič, M.-C. Girardot zatrjuje, da je pritožbeni razlog, da bi Sodi�če prve stopnje določilo od�kodnino za izgubo gotovosti, in ne za izgubo možnosti, nedopusten, ker Komisija ta razlog ni uveljavljala na prvi stopnji pred Sodi�čem prve stopnje.
Consequently, the Commission asks the Court, in accordance with the second sentence of the first paragraph of Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, to declare that the damage suffered by Ms Girardot on account of the Commission’s wrongful act of failing to examine her application for one of the posts in question, and which entailed the loss of an opportunity of being recruited, may be fairly compensated for by the award of a lump sum equal to three months’ net pay and corresponding to the sum which the Commission must pay during the period of notice of a contract for an indefinite period — that is, in the present case, EUR 18 917.43 — increased by the sum, also fixed, of EUR 5 000 as compensation for the fact that the person concerned may no longer take part in a subsequent recruitment procedure.
Komisija torej Sodi�ču predlaga, da v skladu s členom, 61(1), drugi stavek, Statuta Sodi�ča odloči, da se lahko �koda, ki jo je M.-C. Girardot utrpela na podlagi napake Komisije, ki ni obravnavala njene prijave za eno od zadevnih delovnih mest in ji povzročila izgubo možnosti zaposlitve, primerno nadomesti s plačilom pav�alnega zneska v vi�ini treh mesečnih neto plač, kar ustreza vsoti, ki jo mora Komisija plačati med odpovednim rokom pogodbe za določen čas, to je 18.917,43 EUR, povečanega za prav tako pav�alni znesek v vi�ini 5000 EUR kot od�kodnina, ker M.-C. Girardot ne bo mogla več sodelovati pri prihodnjih postopkih zaposlovanja.
On the substance of the case, and as a preliminary point, Ms Girardot points out that, although the way in which the Court of First Instance assessed the extent of the damage in the judgment under appeal is not consistent with the way in which it has acted in other cases, this was because the situations were not similar.
Glede utemeljenosti M.-C. Girardot najprej poudarja, da način pristopa Sodi�ča prve stopnje k oceni obsega �kode v izpodbijani sodbi ne ustreza načinu pristopa v drugih zadevah, to pa zato, ker tudi položaji niso bili primerljivi.
As regards admissibility, she claims, first, that, according to the case-law, the Court of First Instance has exclusive jurisdiction to assess the damage resulting from the loss of an opportunity.
Glede dopustnosti uveljavlja, prvič, da je v skladu s sodno prakso samo Sodi�če prve stopnje pristojno za oceno �kode, ki je nastala zaradi izgube možnosti. Če Komisija Sodi�ču prve stopnje ne očita, da ni opisalo meril, ki jih je uporabilo za oceno �kode, ki jo je utrpela, quod non, Komisija ni upravičena kritizirati presoje Sodi�ča prve stopnje in a fortiori od Sodi�ča pričakovati, da bo sprejelo načelno odločitev o metodi, ki jo je
With regard, first of all, to the actual and certain nature of the damage, Ms Girardot points out that, as regards the damage resulting from the loss of an opportunity, the Court of First Instance has ruled that the requirement as to actual damage is satisfied where an applicant establishes that it is the institution’s allegedly unlawful act which
Glede dejanske in gotove �kode M.-C. Girardot najprej poudari, da se je glede �kode zaradi izgube možnosti Sodi�če prve stopnje že izreklo, da je pogoj dejanskosti izpolnjen, če tožeča stranka dokaže, da je možnost izgubila zaradi nezakonitega ravnanja, ki je očitano instituciji (sodba Sodi�ča prve stopnje z dne 21. marca 1996 v zadevi Farrugia proti Komisiji, T-230/94,
In this case, it is no longer disputed that the Commission’s unlawful refusal to examine Ms Girardot’s applications deprived her of the opportunity, first, of having one or more of the applications accepted and, second, of usefully expressing an interest in any other post subsequently, if she had been entitled to do so.
Kajti v tej zadevi ne gre več za to, da je Komisija nezakonito zavrnila obravnavo prijav M.-C. Girardot in ji s tem odvzela možnost, da bi bila, na eni strani, ena ali več njenih prijav sprejetih in, na drugi strani, da bi se lahko kasneje ustrezno potegovala za drugo delovno mesto, če bi bila do tega �e upravičena.
Instance’s line of reasoning, the very purpose of which, she submits, is to determine the factor which must be applied to the loss of earnings that would have resulted if the opportunity had been realised and which represents the probability of the opportunity materialising.
stopnje, M.-C. Girardot meni, tretjič, da kritike Komisije sploh ne upo�tevajo drugega dela utemeljitve Sodi�ča prve stopnje, ki je namenjen ravno temu, da se določi faktor, ki ga je treba uporabiti za ugotovljeno izgubo dohodkov, v primeru, da bi se možnost uresničila in bi ustrezala verjetnosti, da se možnost uresniči.
Furthermore, it would seem fair that, where there is an equal probability of being recruited, a candidate who has suffered a greater loss of income should be awarded higher compensation than a candidate who has suffered a smaller loss of earnings.
Med drugim naj bi bilo primerno, da ob enaki možnosti zaposlitve kandidat, ki je utrpel pomembnej�o izgubo dohodkov, dobi vi�jo od�kodnino kot kandidat, ki je utrpel manj�o izgubo plačila.
Since such candidates are not in a comparable situation, there can be no infringement of the principle of equal treatment.
Ker kandidata nista v primerljivem položaju, načelo enakega obravnavanja ne more biti kr�eno.
With regard, secondly, to the alleged misinterpretation of the notion of loss of an opportunity as loss of a guarantee, Ms Girardot notes that the approach used in the judgment under appeal, consisting in listing the advantages which she would have enjoyed if she had been recruited and of subsequently determining the percentage chance which she had of being recruited, is a traditional approach which has already been used by the Court of First Instance in its judgment of 5 October 2004 in Eagle and Others v Commission 23 and which is referred to in Belgian legal literature.
Glede zatrjevane spremembe pojma izgube možnosti v pojem izgube gotovosti M.-C. Girardot navaja, drugič, da je način, uporabljen v izpodbijani sodbi, na podlagi katerega se ugotovijo ugodnosti, ki bi jih lahko koristila v primeru zaposlitve, in odstotek možnosti za zaposlitev, ki jih je imela, klasičen način, ki ga je Sodi�če prve stopnje že uporabilo v sodbi z dne 5. oktobra 2004 v zadevi Eagle in drugi proti Komisiji 23in ki je uveljavljen v belgijski doktrini.
That method does not misinterpret the notion of loss of chance, but is suited to the reparation of damage resulting from the loss of an opportunity which is not, by definition, certain to materialise.
Ta metoda ne spreminja instituta izgube možnosti, ampak je prilagojena odpravi �kode zaradi izgube možnosti, ki per definitionem ni gotova, da se uresniči.
With regard, thirdly, to the discrimination brought about by the method employed by the Court of First Instance, Ms Girardot considers that the criticisms expressed by the Commission fail totally to take into account the second part of the Court of First
Glede diskriminacije, ki naj bi jo uvedla metoda, ki jo je uporabilo Sodi�če prve
According to the case-law, a dispute between an official or a temporary servant and the institution to which he is or was answerable concerning compensation for damage is pursued, where it originates in the relationship of employment between the person concerned and the institution, under Article 236 EC and the Staff Regulations and
V skladu s sodno prakso Sodi�ča spada spor o od�kodnini med uradnikom ali začasnim uslužbencem in institucijo, ki ji pripada ali ji je pripadal, ki izvira iz delovnega razmerja, v okvir člena 236 ES pa tudi Kadro-
24 ment and in the judgment under appeal, although this is challenged in part by the Commission in this case — are therefore, in essence, analogous to those which govern the Community’s noncontractual liability, pursuant to Article 288 EC.
24 njeni, kar Komisija v tej zadevi deloma izpodbija, so torej v bistvenem analogni tistim, ki veljajo za nepogodbeno odgovornost Skupnosti v skladu s členom 288 ES.
In that regard, it is to be noted that neither Article 236 EC nor the Staff Regulations, unlike the second paragraph of Article 288 EC, make reference to the rule that the Community must make good any damage caused by its institutions, ‘in accordance with the general principles common to the laws of the Member States’.
V zvezi s tem je treba ugotoviti, da se niti člen 236 ES niti Kadrovski predpisi – drugače kot člen 288(2) ES – ne nana�ajo na določbo, da mora Skupnost nadomestiti �kodo, ki so jo povzročile njene institucije „v skladu s splo�nimi načeli, ki so skupna pravnim ureditvam držav članic“.
It also follows from the caselaw concerning proceedings for compensation in the context of the Community public service that for the Community to incur noncontractual liability three cumulative conditions must be satisfied, namely the illegality of the allegedly wrongful act committed by the institutions, the existence of damage and the existence of a causal link between the act and the damage alleged to have been suffered.
Iz sodne prakse v od�kodninskih sporih na področju javnih uslužbencev Skupnosti prav tako izhaja, da uveljavljanje nepogodbene odgovornosti Skupnosti predpostavlja izpolnitev treh kumulativnih pogojev, in sicer nezakonitost ravnanja, ki se očita institucijam, dejansko �kodo pa tudi obstoj vzročne zveze med ravnanjem in zatrjevano �kodo.
25In that context, the Court ruled that the Court of First Instance did not depart from that case-law, pointing out that in order to claim compensatory interest, officials had to demonstrate fault on the part of the institution, the existence of certain and quantifiable damage and a causal link between the fault and the alleged damage. 26
25V tem okviru je Sodi�če obrazložilo, da se Sodi�če prve stopnje od te sodne prakse ni odmaknilo, ko je poudarilo, da morajo uslužbenci, ki zahtevajo kompenzacijske obresti, dokazati napako institucije, dejanskost gotove in ocenljive škode pa tudi vzročno zvezo med napako in zatrjevano �kodo. 26
Those conditions — which were found to have been satisfied in the interim judg-
Pogoji, za katere sta vmesna sodba pa tudi izpodbijana sodba ugotovili, da so izpol-
26 — Commission v Brazzelli Lualdi and Others, paragraph 42.
26 – Zgoraj navedena sodba Komisija proti Brazzelli Lualdi in drugim (točka 42).
See, also, Case T-99/95 Stott v Commission [1996] ECR II-2227, paragraph 72.
Glej tudi sodbo Sodi�ča prve stopnje z dne 12. decembra 1996 v zadevi Stott proti Komisiji (T-99/95, Recueil, str. II-2227, točka 72).
However, since the noncontractual liability of the Community is governed both in the case of Article 288 EC and in that of Article 236 EC and the Staff Regulations by similar unwritten principles, I take the view that there is nothing to preclude the carrying out of an examination of the legal systems of the Member States in order to ascertain, if not whether there exist any general principles common to the laws of the Member States, at least whether some of them recognise any legal constructions from which the Community judicature may draw inspiration.
Nepogodbena odgovornost Skupnosti vendarle sledi tako v primerih uporabe člena 288 ES kot tudi člena 236 ES in Kadrovskih predpisov podobnim nepisanim načelom in po mojem preudarku nič ne nasprotuje raziskavi pravnih redov držav članic, da se preveri, ali obstajajo splo�na načela, ki so skupna pravnim ureditvam držav članic, oziroma ali vsaj nekatere od njih uporabljajo pravne institute, po katerih bi se lahko ravnalo sodi�če Skupnosti.
Moreover, a brief survey of national laws may be of interest in the present case from the point of view of how they define the loss of an opportunity, whether or not they classify such a loss as capable of compensation and the method which some of those laws use to evaluate the extent of the damage resulting from that type of loss. This survey also allows
Glede ostalega bi lahko bila zanimiva kratka �tudija nacionalnih pravnih ureditev glede opredelitve izgube možnosti in ali v tem primeru priznavajo upravičenost do od�kodnine pa tudi glede metode, ki obstaja v
By contrast, the notion of loss of opportunity and the possibility of compensating for it as such, in particular in disputes in the field of employment law and/or the national public service, are recognised in Belgian, Spanish, French, Greek, Irish, Italian, Luxembourg, Netherlands and United Kingdom laws.
Instituta izgube možnosti in upravičenost do od�kodnine pa sta zlasti v delovnopravnih sporih in/ali sporih v zvezi z nacionalno javno upravo priznana v belgijski, gr�ki, �panski, francoski, irski, italijanski, luksembur�ki, nizozemski in angle�ki pravni ureditvi.
It is not possible from an examination of the laws of the Members States at the time of the application initiating proceedings before the Court of First Instance, that is to say in 2003, to identify a common general principle underlying such rights under which the loss of an opportunity to be recruited constitutes damage capable of compensation, which, moreover is made good in accordance with common or comparable rules.
Iz raziskave pravnih ureditev držav članic v trenutku vložitve tožbe pri Sodi�ču prve stopnje, to je leta 2003, ne izhaja nobeno splo�no načelo, ki bi bilo skupno tem pravnim ureditvam, na podlagi katerega bi izguba možnosti zaposlitve pomenila �kodo, za katero se prisodi od�kodnina in ki bi jo sodi�ča nadomestila na enak ali podoben način.
Essentially, according to those laws, the notion of loss of opportunity is defined as the unrealised expectation of obtaining an advantage and/or of avoiding the occurrence of a risk.
V glavnem se v teh pravnih ureditvah institut izgube možnosti opredeli kot razblinjeno pričakovanje, da bo oseba pridobila ugodnosti in/ali se izognila uresničitvi tveganja.
With regard at least to the loss of an opportunity to obtain an anticipated advantage — which is the situation in this case (the loss of an opportunity to be recruited) — a feature common to the national laws which recognise it is that it applies where an uncertain event occurs and thereby renders the expected result forever unknown.
Vsaj glede izgube možnosti dobiti pričakovano ugodnost, kar je predmet te zadeve (izguba možnosti zaposlitve), obstaja skupna točka v pravnih ureditvah, ki jo priznavajo, in sicer da do izgube možnosti pride v okoli�činah s tveganjem, zaradi katerega postane pričakovani rezultat za vedno nedosegljiv.
Moreover, in general, those laws require that the lost opportunity should be genuine inasmuch as the probability that it will materialise must be high.
Nadalje te pravne ureditve zahtevajo, da je izgubljena možnost resna v smislu, da mora biti verjetnost njene uresničitve velika.
The genuine nature of a lost opportunity therefore constitutes an instrument for measuring the certainty of the damage suffered.
Resnost izgubljene možnosti pomeni merilo gotovosti �kode, ki jo je oseba utrpela.
Indeed, several national laws (the German, Austrian, Finnish, Danish, Portuguese and Swedish laws) do not, in principle, allow compensation to be awarded for the loss of an opportunity to be recruited, even though some of them (in particular, the Finnish, Danish and Portuguese laws) provide for different forms of compensation which may, where appropriate, be more favourable to an unlawfully rejected candidate. 27
Več nacionalnih pravnih ureditev (in sicer danska, nem�ka, avstrijska, portugalska, finska in �vedska) načeloma sploh ne priznava, da se lahko nadomesti izgubo možnosti zaposlitve, čeprav nekatere med njimi (zlasti danska, portugalska in finska pravna ureditev) predvidevajo posebne oblike nadomestila, ki je lahko v določenem primeru za kandidata, ki je bil nezakonito zavrnjen, ugodnej�e. 27
As regards evaluating the damage caused by the loss of an opportunity, regardless of whether the damage is regarded as nonmaterial or material, 28the national courts carry out an assessment on equitable principles.
Glede določitve �kode, povzročene z izgubo možnosti, ne glede na to ali je �koda nepremoženjska ali premoženjska, 28naci-onalna sodi�ča opravijo pravično oceno.