natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
By using the net monthly earnings corresponding, on average, to the most recent remuneration paid by the Commission, the Court of First Instance disregarded, in paragraph 85 of the judgment under appeal, the fact that she had more chance of being recruited to a post at Grade A4 than a post at Grade A5, since five of the eight posts for which Ms Girardot had applied were at Grade A4.
S tem da je upo�tevalo neto mesečno plačilo, ki ustreza povprečno zadnjemu plačilu, ki ga je izplačala Komisija, je Sodi�če prve stopnje v točki 85 izpodbijane sodbe zanemarilo dejstvo, da je imela M.-C. Girardot več možnosti, da bi bila zaposlena na delovno mesto z nazivom A4 kot nazivom A5, saj je pet od osmih delovnih mest, za katera je kandidirala, spadalo v naziv A4.
The third error of assessment relates to the probability of the opportunity to be recruited materialising, since the Court of First Instance, by determining at 50% the chance that Ms Girardot had of filling a post at the Commission, disregarded the fact, on the one hand, that applying for eight posts is more a factor likely to increase the opportunities of being recruited and, on the other hand, that a genuine chance is not the same as an even chance.
Tretja napaka pri presoji se nana�a na verjetnost uresničitve možnosti zaposlitve, ker je Sodi�če prve stopnje s tem, da je določilo možnost, da bi M.-C. Girardot dobila zaposlitev na Komisiji, na 50 odstotkov, zanemarilo dejstvo, da pomeni na eni strani kandidirati za osem delovnih mest element, ki poveča možnost zaposlitve, in da na drugi strani resna možnost ne ustreza možnosti 50 odstotkom.
Finally, the fourth manifest error of assessment lies in the absence of consideration, in paragraphs 133 to 138 of the judgment under appeal, of all the elements constituting nonmaterial damage and physical injury, although the medical certificates annexed to the cross-appeal refer to the depressive syndrome from which she has suffered since the unlawful rejection of her applications by the Commission.
Nazadnje se četrta očitna napaka pri presoji nana�a na to, da Sodi�če prve stopnje ni upo�tevalo v točkah od 133 do 138 izpodbijane sodbe vseh sestavnih delov nepremoženjske in telesne �kode, medtem ko zdravni�ka potrdila, ki so priložena nasprotni pritožbi, potrjujejo, da je od takrat, ko je Komisija nezakonito zavrgla njene prijave, v depresiji.
In her cross-appeal, Ms Girardot contends that the Court of First Instance infringed Community law by committing several manifest errors of assessment.
Z nasprotno pritožbo M.-C. Girardot uveljavlja, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje kr�ilo pravo Skupnosti, ko je storilo več očitnih napak pri presoji.
The first relates to the determination of the period to be taken into consideration when calculating the difference in earnings insofar as, in paragraph 80 of the judgment under
Prva od teh napak se nana�a na določitev obdobja, ki je bilo upo�tevano pri izračunu razlike v plačilu, ker Sodi�če prve stopnje v točki 80 izpodbi -jane sodbe ni upo�tevalo izgubo možnosti
B — Analysis for the damage suffered.
B – Analiza bilo zatrjevano in tudi ne ugotovljeno.
54On those two grounds, such pleas should be dismissed as inadmissible.
Kot je bilo to med drugim že navedeno, je Sodi�če prve stopnje edino pristojno za presojo načina in obsega povrnitve �kode.
It is clear from Article 225 EC and the first paragraph of Article 58 of the Statute of the Court of Justice that the Court of First Instance has exclusive jurisdiction, first, to find the facts except where the substantive inaccuracy of its findings is apparent from the documents submitted to it and, second, to assess those facts.
Iz členov 225 ES in 58(1) Statuta Sodi�ča izhaja, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje edino pristojno na eni strani za ugotavljanje dejstev, razen ko bi dejanska nepravilnost njegovih ugotovitev izhajala iz dokumentov v spisu, ter na drugi strani za njihovo presojo.
When the Court of First Instance has found or assessed the facts, the Court of Justice has jurisdiction under Article 225 EC to review the legal characterisation of those facts by the Court of First Instance and the legal conclusions it has drawn from them. 53
Ko je Sodi�če prve stopnje ugotovilo ali presodilo dejstva, je Sodi�če na podlagi člena 225 ES pristojno za izvajanje nadzora nad pravno kvalifikacijo teh dejstev in pravnih posledic, ki jim jih je Sodi�če prve stopnje pripisalo. 53
With regard to the fourth plea, by which Ms Girardot alleges that the Court of First Instance failed to take into account the medical certificates that she submitted, that, to me, appears to be admissible, since it seems to be directed not against the incorrect assessment of evidence, but against the alleged infringement of the obligation to examine the evidence allegedly adduced, which purports to establish the existence of heads of damage other than the material damage caused by the unlawful act committed by the Commission.
Četrti pritožbeni razlog, v katerem M.-C. Girardot očita Sodi�ču prve stopnje, da ni upo�tevalo zdravni�kih potrdil, ki jih je predložila, se mi zdi dopusten, ker ni naravnan proti napačni presoji dokazov, ampak proti zatrjevani kr�itvi obveznosti, da je treba obravnavati domnevno predstavljene dokaze, ki bi pokazali obstoj drugih vrst �kode, kot je premoženjska �koda zaradi nezakonitosti, ki jo je storila Komisija.
Accordingly, just as the Court has, in the context of an appeal, ruled that a plea alleging an incomplete examination of the facts was well founded, 55a plea alleging the absence of an examination of evidence by the Court of First Instance should, in my view, also be subject to review on the part of the Court.
Kot je namreč Sodi�če v okviru pritožbenega postopka presojalo utemeljenost pritožbenega razloga, ki je izhajal iz nepopolne presoje dejanskega stanja, 55tako bi po mojem mnenju moralo presojati Sodi�če tudi pritožbeni razlog, ki temelji na tem, da Sodi�če prve stopnje ni presodilo dokazov.
However, for the reasons set out below, I take the view that that plea should be dismissed as irrelevant or, in any event, as unfounded.
Vendarle zaradi razlogov, ki jih bom predstavil v nadaljevanju, menim, da bi moral biti ta pritožbeni razlog zavrnjen kot brezpredmeten ali vsekakor neutemeljen.
In the present case, as was reiterated at the hearing by Ms Girardot, the cross-appeal, in relation to the first three pleas on which it is based, simply challenges the assessment of certain facts carried out by the Court of First Instance in the context of applying the method of calculation which the latter used to determine the damage suffered by Ms Girardot on account of the loss of an opportunity to be recruited to a post as a member of the temporary staff at the Commission, although no distortion of those facts has been alleged or can be identified. Moreover, as has already been stated, the Court of First Instance has exclusive jurisdiction to assess the method and extent of compensation
V pričujoči zadevi, na kar je M.-C. Girardot znova poudarila na obravnavi, se nasprotna pritožba glede prvih treh pritožbenih razlogov, na katerih temelji, omejuje na izpodbijanje presoje nekaterih dejstev, ki jo je izvedlo Sodi�če prve stopnje v okviru uporabe metode izračuna, ki jo je spre -jelo za določitev �kode, ki jo je utrpela M.-C. Girardot zaradi izgube možnosti zaposlitve kot začasna uslužbenka na delovno mesto pri Komisiji. Izkrivljanje teh dejstev ni
54 — See the caselaw cited in footnote 47 above.
54 – Glej sodno prakso, navedeno v opombi 47.
53 — See Case C-167/04 P JCB Service v Commission [2006] ECR I-8935, paragraph 106, and the caselaw cited.
53 – Glej sodbo z dne 21. septembra 2006 v zadevi JCB Service proti Komisiji (C-167/04 P, ZOdl., str. I-8935, točka 106 in navedena sodna praksa).
55 — Joined Cases C-238/99 P, C-244/99 P, C-245/99 P, C-247/99 P, C-250/99 P to C-252/99 P and C-254/99 P Limburgse Vinyl Maatschappij and Others v Commission [2002] ECR I-8375, paragraphs 392 to 406.
55 – Sodba z dne 15. oktobra 2002 v združenih zadevah Limburgse Vinyl Maatschappij in drugi proti Komisiji (C-238/99 P, C-244/99 P, C-245/99 P, C-247/99 P, od C-250/99 P do C-252/99 P in C-254/99 P, Recueil, str. I-8375, točke od 392 do 406).
COMMISSION v GIRARDOT and that, accordingly, Ms Girardot fails to establish that the Court of First Instance, by finding, in paragraphs 133 and 138 of the judgment under appeal, that she had failed to demonstrate the existence of the damage that she was alleging on the basis, inter alia, of medical certificates, committed an error of law in applying rules on the burden of proof and the production of evidence or infringed Community law by failing to examine evidence, since that evidence had not been presented to it. 57
KOMISIJA PROTI GIRARDOT pritožbi in na katerih M.-C. Girardot utemeljuje svoj zahtevek, kasnej�a od izreka izpodbijane sodbe. M.-C. Girardot torej ni dokazala, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje, s tem, da je v točkah 133 in 138 ugotovilo, da ni dokazala obstoja �kode, ki jo je zatrjevala med drugim z zdravni�kimi potrdili, napačno uporabilo pravo glede pravil o dokaznem bremenu in o predložitvi dokazov ali da je kr�ilo pravo Skupnosti, s tem da ni upo�tevalo dokazov, čeprav mu ta niso bila predložena. 57
For all those reasons, I take the view that the cross-appeal should be dismissed as partly inadmissible and partly irrelevant or unfounded.
Zaradi vseh teh razlogov menim, da bi morala biti nasprotna pritožba zavrnjena kot delno nedopustna in delno brezpredmetna ali neutemeljena.
In those circumstances, it is appropriate to dismiss both the main appeal and the cross-appeal.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je tako lahko v prvem stavku točke 125 izpodbijane sodbe presodilo, da trditve glede teh drugih vrst �kode niso upo�tevne.
In any event, as regards whether that plea is unfounded, it should be noted that the medical certificates, which are annexed to the cross-appeal and on which Ms Girardot supports her claim, are all subsequent to the delivery of the judgment under appeal
Glede neutemeljenosti tega pritožbenega razloga je treba ugotoviti, da so vsa zdravni�ka potrdila, ki so priložena nasprotni
Under the first paragraph of Article 122 of the Rules of Procedure, where the appeal is unfounded, the Court is to make a decision
V skladu s členom 122(1) Poslovnika Sodi�če odloči o stro�kih, če pritožba ni utemeljena. V skladu s členom 69(2) istega Poslovnika, ki se uporablja za pritožbeni
57 — See, in that regard, order of the Court of 4 October 2007 in Case C-100/07 P É.R. and Others v Council and Commission, not published in the ECR, paragraph 29.
Glej sklep z dne 9. marca 2007 v zadevi Schneider Electric proti Komisiji (C-188/06 P, neobjavljen v ZOdl., točka 64 in navedena sodna praksa).
According to Article 69(2) of those rules, which applies to the appeal procedure pursuant to Article 118 thereof, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings.
M.-C. Girardot je predlagala, da se Komisiji naloži plačilo stro�kov.
Since Ms Girardot applied in her pleadings for the Commission to be ordered to pay the costs and the latter must, in my view, be unsuccessful in its single plea, it should be ordered to pay the costs of the main appeal. Since the
Ker bi ta s svojim edinim pritožbenim razlogom po mojem mnenju morala biti neuspe�na, se ji naloži plačilo stro�kov, povezanih s pritožbo.
Commission applied in its pleadings for each of the parties to be ordered to bear its own costs in these proceedings and Ms Girardot must, in my view, be unsuccessful in her pleas put forward in support of the cross-appeal, each of the parties should be ordered to bear their own costs in respect of the cross-appeal, in accordance with the Commission’s claims and Article 69(3) of the Rules of Procedure, which applies to the appeal procedure pursuant to Article 118 of those rules.
Ker je Komisija predlagala, da se vsaki stranki naloži plačilo svojih stro�kov v zvezi s pritožbenim postopkom, in ker bi morala biti M.-C. Girardot po mojem mnenju neuspe�na s svojimi pritožbenimi razlogi, na katerih temelji njena nasprotna pritožba, naj bi se vsaki stranki naložilo plačilo lastnih stro�kov v zvezi z nasprotno pritožbo, v skladu s predlogi Komisije in členom 69(3) Poslovnika, ki se uporablja v pritožbenem postopku na podlagi člena 118 tega Poslovnika.
Having regard to the foregoing considerations, I propose that the Court should:
Glede na zgoraj navedeno Sodi�ču predlagam, naj razsodi:
APPEAL under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice brought on 17 August 2006,
Komisija Evropskih skupnosti, ki jo zastopata D. Martin in F.
Commission of the European Communities, represented by D. Martin and F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg, appellant, the other party to the proceedings being:
Clotuche-Duvieusart, zastopnika, z naslovom za vročanje v Luxembourgu, pritožnica, druga stranka v postopku je
2008 — CASE C-348/06 P
2008 – ZADEVA C-348/06 P
Advocate General: P. Mengozzi, Registrar: M.-A. Gaudissart, Head of Unit, having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 24 May 2007, after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 22 November 2007, gives the following
Arabadjiev, sodnik, generalni pravobranilec: P. Mengozzi, sodni tajnik: M.-A. Gaudissart, vodja enote, na podlagi pisnega postopka in obravnave z dne 24. maja 2007, po predstavitvi sklepnih predlogov generalnega pravobranilca na obravnavi 22. novembra 2007 izreka naslednjo
COMMISSION v GIRARDOT payable from 6 September 2004, at the rate set by the European Central bank for main refinancing operations, plus two percentage points, and, secondly, ordered the Commission to pay the costs.
KOMISIJA PROTI GIRARDOT operacije glavnega refinanciranja, povi�ano za dve točki, ter Komisiji naložilo plačilo stro�kov.
Article 29(1) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities (‘the Staff Regulations’), in the wording applicable at the material time, provides:
Člen 29(1) Kadrovskih predpisov za uradnike Evropskih skupnosti (v nadaljevanju: Kadrovski predpisi), v različici, ki velja za obravnavani primer, določa:
(c) what applications for transfer have been made by officials of other institutions of the three European Communities and then follow the procedure for competitions on the basis either of qualifications or of tests, or of both qualifications and tests.
„Pred zasedbo prostega delovnega mesta v instituciji organ za imenovanja najprej preuči: a) ali je delovno mesto mogoče zasesti z napredovanjem ali premestitvijo znotraj institucije; b) ali se izvedejo notranji natečaji v instituciji; c) kak�ne pro�nje za premestitev so vložili uradniki drugih institucij treh Evropskih skupnosti in nato uporabi natečajne postopke na podlagi bodisi kvalifikacij ali preizkusov ali na podlagi obojih.
‘The Court of Justice of the European Communities shall have jurisdiction in any dispute between the Communities and any person to whom these Staff Regulations apply regarding the legality of an act adversely affecting such person within the meaning of Article 90(2).
„Sodi�če Evropskih skupnosti je pristojno za vse spore med Skupnostmi in katero koli osebo, za katero veljajo ti kadrovski predpisi, v zvezi z zakonitostjo akta, ki ima negativne posledice za to osebo v smislu člena 90(2).
In disputes of a financial character the Court of Justice shall have unlimited jurisdiction.’
Sodi�če Evropskih skupnosti je neomejeno pristojno za spore finančne narave.“
Article 2(d) of the Conditions of employment of other servants of the European Communities (‘the Conditions of employment’) in the wording applicable at the material time, provides:
Člen 2(d) Pogojev za zaposlitev drugih uslužbencev Evropskih skupnosti (v nadaljevanju: PZDU), v različici, ki velja za obravnavani primer, določa:
(d) staff engaged to fill temporarily a permanent post paid from research and investment appropriations and included in the list of posts appended to the budget relating to the institution concerned’
[…] d) uslužbenec, ki se za določen čas zaposli na stalnem delovnem mestu, plačanem iz odobrenih proračunskih sredstev za raziskave in naložbe in vključenem v seznam delovnih mest, ki je priložen proračunu za zadevno institucijo.“
‘Temporary staff to whom Article 2[(d) of the Conditions of employment] applies shall be engaged on the following conditions:
„Začasni uslužbenci, za katere se uporablja člen 2[(d) PZDU], se zaposlijo pod naslednjimi pogoji:
— temporary staff in Category A or B required to perform duties necessitating scientific or technical qualifications shall be engaged for not more than five years; their contracts may be renewed,
– začasni uslužbenci iz kategorije A ali B, ki opravljajo delo, za katero se zahteva znanstvena ali tehnična usposobljenost, se zaposlijo za največ pet let; njihove pogodbe je mogoče obnoviti;
The contracts of temporary staff to whom Article 2[(d) of the Conditions of employment] applies who are engaged for a fixed period may be renewed not more than once for a fixed period.
Pogodbe začasnih uslužbencev, ki so zaposleni za določen čas in za katere se uporablja člen 2[(d) PZDU], se lahko obnovijo le enkrat za določen čas.
Any further renewal shall be for an indefinite period.’
Vsaka naslednja obnovitev je za nedoločen čas.“
Article 47 of the Conditions of employment provides:
Člen 47 PZDU določa:
(2) Where the contract is for an indefinite period:
(2) Pri pogodbi za nedoločen čas: a) ob koncu odpovednega roka, določenega v pogodbi […].
(a) at the end of the period of notice stipulated in the contract … In the case of a servant within the meaning of Article 2[(d) of the Conditions of employment] the period of notice shall not be less than one month for each completed year of service, subject to a minimum of three months and a maximum of ten months … ;
Za uslužbence v smislu člena 2 [(d) PZDU] odpovedni rok ne sme biti kraj�i od enega meseca za vsako dopolnjeno leto dela, pri čemer je najkraj�i rok tri mesece in najdalj�i deset mesecev.[…]; b) ob koncu meseca, v katerem uradnik dopolni 65 let starosti.“
Cases of termination without notice are specified in Articles 48 to 50 of the Conditions of employment.
Primeri odpovedi pogodbe brez odpovednega roka so določeni v členih od 48 do 50 PZDU.
Mrs Girardot entered the service of the Commission on 1 February 1996 as a national expert on secondment.
M.-C. Girardot je nastopila delo pri Komisiji 1. februarja 1996 kot napoteni nacionalni strokovnjak. Ta status je ohranila do 31. januarja 1999.
By contract of 15 January 1999, entered into for a period of two years and subsequently renewed for a supplementary period of one year, Mrs Girardot was employed as a temporary staff member within the meaning of Article 2(d) of the Conditions of employment.
S pogodbo z dne 15. januarja 1999, ki je bila sklenjena za dve leti in kasneje obnovljena za eno leto s sporazumom, ki dopolnjuje pogodbo, se je M.-C. Girardot zaposlila kot začasna uslužbenka v smislu člena 2(d) PZDU.
As such, she was assigned successively to the Commission’s ‘Industry’ Directorate-General then to its ‘Information Society’ Directorate-General.
Na podlagi tega je bila najprej razporejena v generalni direktorat Komisije „Industrija“ in nato v generalni direktorat Komisije „Informacijska družba“.
On 26 July 2000 the Commission’s ‘Personnel and Administration’ Directorate-General published a notice of vacancy stating that, in accordance with its decision on the new research personnel policy, the Commission was holding ‘internal reserve competitions’ which included the competition COM/T/R/ST/A/2000 for careers brackets at grades A 8/A 5, A 4 and A 3 of Category A to be paid from scientific and technical appropriations in the research and investment budget.
Generalni direktorat Komisije „Kadrovske zadeve in administracija“ je 26. julija 2000 objavil prosta delovna mesta in sporočil, da organizira v okviru odločitve o novi politiki glede osebja v raziskovalni dejavnosti (NPORD) „notranje natečaje za oblikovanje rezervnega seznama“, v tem primeru notranji natečaj za oblikovanje rezervnega seznama COM/T/R/ST/A/2000 v zvezi s kariernimi nazivi A 8/A 5, A 4 in A 3 kategorije A, ki so plačani iz odobrenih proračunskih sredstev za znanost in tehniko proračuna za raziskave in naložbe.
That notice stated, inter alia, that, following a single test consisting of an interview with a selection board, the candidates who obtained the required number of points would be registered on a list of persons entitled to be appointed to a permanent post.
V tej objavi je bilo med drugim navedeno, da bodo kandidati, ki bodo na razgovoru s komisijo dosegli zahtevano �tevilo točk, vpisani na seznam, na podlagi česar bodo upravičeni do imenovanja na stalno delovno mesto.
On 9 and 12 February 2001 the ‘Personnel and Administration’ Directorate-General published two vacancy notices for permanent posts to be paid from research appropriations with the intention of enabling temporary staff members to become permanent officials.
Generalni direktorat „Kadrovske zadeve in administracija“ je 9. in 12. februarja 2001 objavil dve prosti stalni delovni mesti za zaposlitev začasnih uslužbencev, plačani iz odobrenih proračunskih sredstev za raziskave in naložbe.
By letters of 20 February 2001 Mrs Girardot expressed her interest in a Category A post published in the vacancy notice of 9 February 2001, and also for seven other Category A posts published in the vacancy notice of 12 February 2001.
M.-C. Girardot je z dopisi z dne 20. februarja 2001 izrazila zanimanje za delovno mesto kategorije A, ki je bilo objavljeno 9. februarja 2001, ter za sedem drugih prostih delovnih mest kategorije A, objavljenih 12. februarja 2001.
By letter of 13 March 2001 the Commission informed Mrs Girardot that her application for the seven posts in the vacancy notice of 12 February 2001 ‘could not be taken into consideration’ on the ground that those posts ‘were open only to staff covered by the Staff Regulations in the service of the Commission who had been successful candidates in an open competition’.
Komisija je z dopisom z dne 13. marca 2001 M.-C. Girardot obvestila, da njenih prijav na sedem delovnih mest, ki so bila objavljena 12. februarja 2001, ni mogla upo�tevati, ker so ta delovna mesta dostopna samo za uslužbence Komisije, ki so uspe�no opravili natečaj.
In respect of each of those posts, the Commission accepted the application of seven other temporary staff members, whose names all appeared on the list produced following the ‘internal reserve list competition’ COM/T/R/ST/A/2000, and the Commission subsequently appointed each of them to the post in which they had expressed interest.
Za vsako od teh delovnih mest je Komisija prejela prijave sedmih drugih začasnih uslužbencev, ki so bili na seznamu, narejenem po koncu notranjega natečaja za oblikovanje rezervnega seznama COM/T/R/ST/A/2000, ter vsakega od njih pozneje imenovala na delovno mesto, za katero so se potegovali.
By letter of 15 March 2001 the Commission then informed Mrs Girardot that it ‘could not accept her application’ for the post which appeared in the vacancy notice of 9 February 2001.
Komisija je nato z dopisom z dne 15. marca 2001 M.-C. Girardot obvestila, da ni mogla sprejeti njene prijave na prosto delovno mesto, objavljeno 9. februarja 2001.
On 8 June 2001 Mrs Girardot lodged a complaint against the decisions to reject her applications contained in the two letters.
M.-C. Girardot je 8. junija 2001 vložila pritožbo zoper odločitve iz teh dveh dopisov, da se njene prijave zavržejo. Ta pritožba je bila z molkom organa zavrnjena.
Procedure before the Court of First Instance
Postopek pred Sodiščem