natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Similarly, a commitment to autonomy means that people must not be deprived of valuable options in areas of fundamental importance for their lives by reference to suspect classifications.
Zavezanost avtonomiji podobno pomeni, da ljudje ne smejo biti prikraj�ani za pomembne možnosti na področjih, ki so bistvena za njihova življenja, zaradi sklicevanja na sumljive kategorije.
Access to employment and professional development are of fundamental significance for every individual, not merely as a means of earning one’s living but also as an important way of self-fulfilment and realisation of one’s potential.
Dostop do zaposlitve in poklicni razvoj sta bistvena za vsakega posameznika, ne samo kot sredstvo zaslužka ampak tudi kot pomemben način samouveljavitve in uresničitve svojih potencialov.
The discriminator who discriminates against an individual belonging to a suspect classification unjustly deprives her of valuable options.
Kdor diskriminira posameznika, ki spada v sumljivo kategorijo, ga po krivem prikraj�a za pomembne možnosti.
As a consequence, that person’s ability to lead an autonomous life is seriously compromised since an important aspect of her life is shaped not by her own choices but by the prejudice of someone else.
Tako je sposobnost posameznika, da živi avtonomno, resno ogrožena, ker se pomemben del njegovega življenja oblikuje ne z lastnimi odločitvami, ampak s predsodki nekoga drugega.
By treating people belonging to these groups less well because of their characteristic, the discriminator prevents them from exercising their autonomy.
S tem da osebe, ki spadajo v te kategorije, zaradi njihovih lastnosti obravnava manj ugodno, oseba, ki diskriminira, prepreči izvr�evanje njihove avtonomije. Na tej točki je pravično in razumno, da se posreduje s protidiskriminacijskimi predpisi.
In essence, by valuing equality and committing ourselves to realising equality through the law, we aim at sustaining for every person the conditions for an autonomous life.
V bistvu se želi s tem, da se ceni enakost in se zaveže k uresničevanju enakosti s pravom, ohraniti za vsako osebo pogoje za avtonomno življenje.
Yet, directly targeting a person who has a particular characteristic is not the only way of discriminating against him or her; there are
Vendar neposredni napad na osebo s posebnimi lastnostmi ni edini način diskriminacije, obstajajo tudi drugi subtilnej�i in manj
Furthermore, this subtler form of discrimination undermines the ability of persons who have a suspect characteristic to exercise their autonomy.
Nadalje, ta subtilnej�a oblika diskriminacije zmanj�a sposobnost oseb s sumljivo lastnostjo, da bi izvr�evale svojo avtonomijo.
For instance, the autonomy of members of a religious group may be affected (for example, as to whom to marry or where to live) if they know that the person they will marry is likely to suffer discrimination because of the religious affiliation of his spouse.
Na primer, avtonomija članov verske skupine je lahko zmanj�ana (npr. glede izbire zakonca ali kraja bivanja), če vedo, da bo oseba, s katero se bodo poročili, žrtev diskriminacije zaradi verske pripadnosti njenega zakonca.
The same can happen, albeit to a lesser extent, with individuals who are disabled.
Čeprav v manj�em obsegu, se lahko isto zgodi posameznikom, ki so invalidi.
People belonging to certain groups are often more vulnerable than the average person, so they have come to rely on individuals with whom they are closely
Ljudje, ki spadajo v določeno skupino, so pogosto bolj ranljivi od povprečne osebe, zato se zanesejo na posameznike, s katerimi so tesno povezani, za pomoč pri njihovih naporih, da bi živeli v skladu s temeljnimi odločitvami, ki so jih sprejeli. Kdor prikraj�a posameznika
Put differently, the person who belongs to the suspect classification is excluded from a range of possibilities that would otherwise have been open to him.
Z drugimi besedami, oseba, ki spada v sumljivo kategorijo, je izključena iz niza možnosti, ki bi ji drugače bile na voljo.
The important words here are ‘on the grounds of’.
Pomembna beseda je „zaradi“. Je pogost predlog prava in moralne filozofije, da ni vsa diskriminacija slaba.
In the context of employment, for instance, it is perfectly acceptable for an employer to hire a candidate who is responsible, trustworthy and polite and exclude candidates who are irresponsible, untrustworthy and rude.
V okviru zaposlovanja, na primer, je popolnoma sprejemljivo, da delodajalec zaposli kandidata, ki je odgovoren, zanesljiv in vljuden, ter da izključi kandidate, ki so neodgovorni, nezanesljivi in nevljudni.
Conversely, we think it is wrong to reject someone on the basis of his or her race or religion, and in most legal systems the law intervenes to prevent such discrimination from taking place.
Nasprotno pa menimo, da je narobe zavrniti nekoga na podlagi njegove rase ali vere, in v večini pravnih sistemov pravo posreduje, da bi se to diskriminacijo preprečilo.
What determines whether the employer’s conduct is acceptable or not, and triggers the law’s intervention, is the ground of discrimination relied on by the employer in each case.
To, kar določi, ali je ravnanje delodajalca sprejemljivo ali ne, in sproži posredovanje prava, je podlaga za diskriminacijo, na katero se je oprl delodajalec v posameznem primeru.
How the Directive functions
Delovanje Direktive
Virtually all antidiscrimination statutes prohibit discrimination on a number of specified grounds.
Praktično vsi protidiskriminacijski zakoni prepovedujejo diskriminacijo na določenih podlagah.
This is the strategy followed by the Community legislature in the Directive which outlaws discrimination based on religion or belief, disability, age and sexual orientation.
To je strategija, ki ji je sledil normodajalec Skupnosti v Direktivi, ki prepoveduje diskriminacijo na podlagi vere ali prepričanja, invalidnosti, starosti in spolne usmerjenosti.
The main duty imposed by antidiscrimination legislation, such as the Directive, is to treat people in a certain way which is comparable to how others are treated.
Glavna obveznost, določena s protidiskriminacijskimi predpisi, kot je Direktiva, je, da je treba ljudi obravnavati na določen način, ki je primerljiv s tem, kako so obravnavani drugi.
As Gardner explains this is a question of justice.
Kot razlaga Gardner, je to vpra�anje pravičnosti.
Thus, when we say that it is wrong to treat someone less favourably on certain grounds what we mean is that justice requires that we do not rely on those grounds in order negatively to affect that person’s position.
Ko tako rečemo, da je narobe obravnavati nekoga manj ugodno na določenih podlagah, v bistvu menimo, da pravičnost zahteva, da se ne opremo na tiste podlage, da bi negativno vplivali na položaj te osebe.
Put differently, if we do rely on those prohibited grounds we have inflicted on the person concerned an injustice.
Z drugimi besedami, če se opremo na te prepovedane podlage, povzročimo tej osebi krivico.
The Community legislature adopted the Directive in order to protect, in the field of employment and occupation, people belonging to suspect classifications and to ensure that their dignity and autonomy is not compromised either by obvious and immediate or subtle and less obvious discrimination.
Normodajalec Skupnosti je sprejel Direktivo, da bi na področju zaposlovanja in dela za�čitil ljudi, ki spadajo v sumljive kategorije, in da bi zagotovil, da nista njihovo dostojanstvo in avtonomija prizadeta z očitno in neposredno ali subtilno in manj očitno diskriminacijo.
An indication of how this is to be achieved is already apparent in Article 1 of the Directive, which reads: ‘The purpose of this Directive is to lay down a general framework for combating discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation as regards employment and occupation, with a view to putting into effect in the Member States the principle of equal treatment’ (my emphasis).
Namig, kako se to lahko doseže, izhaja že iz člena 1 Direktive, v katerem je določeno: „Namen direktive je opredeliti splo�ni okvir boja proti diskriminaciji zaradi vere ali prepričanja, hendikepiranosti [invalidnosti], starosti ali spolne usmerjenosti pri zaposlovanju in delu, zato da bi v državah članicah uresničevali načelo enakega obravnavanja“ (moj poudarek).
As soon as we have ascertained that the basis for the employer’s conduct is one of the prohibited grounds then we enter the realm of unlawful discrimination.
COLEMAN ugotovi, da ravnanje delodajalca temelji na eni izmed prepovedanih podlag, se pride na področje nezakonite diskriminacije.
In the sense described above, the Dir -ective performs an exclusionary function: it excludes religious belief, age, disability and sexual orientation from the range of permissible reasons an employer may legitimately rely upon in order to treat one employee less favourably than another.
Kot je opisano zgoraj, ima Direktiva izključujočo funkcijo: izključuje versko prepričanje, starost, invalidnost in spolno usmerjenost iz niza dovoljenih razlogov, na katere se lahko delodajalec legitimno opre, ko eno zaposleno osebo obravnava manj ugodno kot druge.
In other words, after the coming into force of the Directive it is no longer permissible for these considerations to figure in the employer’s reasoning when she decides to treat an employee less favourably.
Z drugimi besedami, od začetka veljavnosti Direktive delodajalcem ni več dovoljeno, da na takih preudarkih utemeljijo svojo odločitev o manj ugodnem obravnavanju zaposlene osebe.
The Directive prohibits direct discrimination, 12harassment 13and indirect discrimination.
Direktiva prepoveduje neposredno diskriminacijo, 12 nadlegovanje 13 in posredno diskriminacijo.
14 The distinguishing feature of direct discrimination and harassment is that they bear a necessary relationship to a particular suspect classification.
14Razlikovalna lastnost neposredne diskriminacije in nadlegovanja je, da sta nujno v razmerju do določene sumljive kategorije.
The discriminator relies on a suspect classification in order to act in a certain way.
Določeno ravnanje osebe, ki diskriminira, temelji na razvrstitvi v sumljive kategorije.
The classification is not a mere contingency but serves as an essential premise of his reasoning.
Razvrstitev ni le naključje ampak bistveni razlog za njeno odločitev.
An employer’s reliance on those suspect grounds is seen by the Community legal order as an evil which must be eradicated.
To, da se delodajalec opre na te sumljive podlage, je z vidika pravnega reda Skupnosti zlo, ki ga je treba izkoreniniti.
Therefore, the Directive prohibits the use of those classifications as grounds upon which an employer’s reasoning may be based.
Zato Direktiva prepoveduje uporabo te razvrstitve kot podlage, na kateri temelji delodajalčeva odločitev.
By contrast, in indirect discrimination cases the intentions of the employer and the reasons he has to act or not to act are irrelevant.
Nasprotno pa v primerih posredne diskriminacije nameni delodajalca in njegovi razlogi za ravnanje ali neravnanje niso upo�tevni.
In fact, this is the whole point of the prohibition of indirect discrimination: even neutral, innocent or good faith measures and policies adopted with no discriminatory intent whatsoever will be caught if their impact on persons who have a particular characteristic is greater than their impact on other persons.
To je v bistvu smisel prepovedi posredne diskriminacije: celo nevtralni, nedolžni ali dobronamerni ukrepi in politike, sprejeti brez diskriminatornega namena, bodo zajeti s prepovedjo, če bo njihov vpliv na osebe s posebno lastnostjo večji od vpliva na druge osebe.
15It is this ‘disparate impact’ of such measures on certain people that is the target of indirect discrimination legislation.
15Ta „različen vpliv“ takih ukrepov na določene ljudi je predmet predpisov o posredni diskriminaciji.
The prohibition of such discrimination ties in with the obligation of employers to accommodate those groups by adopting measures and designing their policies in a way that does not impose a burden on them which is excessive compared with that imposed on other people.
Prepoved take diskriminacije je povezana z obveznostjo delodajalcev, da se prilagodijo tem skupinam s sprejetjem ukrepov in oblikovanjem politik, ki jim ne nalagajo prekomernega bremena v primerjavi s tistim, ki je naloženo drugim ljudem.
16 In this way, while the prohibition of direct discrimination and harassment operates as an exclusionary mechanism (by excluding from an employer’s reasoning reliance on certain grounds) the prohibition of indirect discrimination operates as an inclusionary mechanism (by obliging employers to take into account and accommodate the needs of individuals with certain characteristics).
16 Tako deluje prepoved neposredne diskriminacije in nadlegovanja kot izključujoči mehanizem (z izključitvijo določenih podlag za delodajalčevo odločitev), prepoved posredne diskriminacije pa kot vključujoči sistem (z določanjem obveznosti za delodajalce, da upo�tevajo potrebe posameznikov z določenimi lastnostmi in se jim prilagodijo).
12 — Defined in Article 2(2)(a) as a situation ‘where one person is treated less favourably than another is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation, on any of the grounds referred to in Article 1’.
12 – V členu 2(2)(a) je opredeljena kot položaj, „kadar je, je bila ali bi bila oseba obravnavana manj ugodno kakor neka druga v primerljivi situaciji zaradi katerega od razlogov iz člena 1“.
13 — Defined in Article 2(3) as conduct relating to any of the grounds listed in Article 1 that ‘takes place with the purpose or effect of violating the dignity of a person and of creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading humiliating or offensive environment’.
13 – V členu 2(3) je opredeljeno kot ravnanje, povezano s katerim od motivov iz člena 1, „katerega cilj ali posledica je kratenje dostojanstva osebe in ustvarjanje zastra�ujočega, sovra -žnega, poniževalnega, sramotilnega ali žaljivega okolja“.
15 — I have discussed the issue of past discrimination and equal treatment in the context of equality between men and women in my Opinion in Case C-319/03 Briheche [2004] ECR I-8807.
15 – Vpra�anje diskriminacije, ki jo je nekdo utrpel v preteklosti, in enakega obravnavanja v okviru enakosti med mo�kimi in ženskami sem obravnaval v sklepnih predlogih z dne 29. junija 2004 v zadevi Briheche (C-319/03, ZOdl., str. I-8807).
14 — Defined in Article 2(2)(b) as a situation where ‘an apparently neutral provision, criterion or practice would put persons having a particular religion or belief, a particular disability, a particular age, or a particular sexual orientation at a par -ticular disadvantage compared with other persons’.
14 – V členu 2(2)(b) je opredeljena kot položaj, „kadar je zaradi kak�ne navidez nevtralne določbe, merila ali prakse neka oseba določene vere ali prepričanja, ki ima določen hendikep [je invalid] ali je določene starosti ali spolne usmerjenosti, v primerjavi z drugimi v slab�em položaju“.
Thus, the person who is disabled and the person who is the obvious victim or the object of the discriminatory act are not the same.
Tako oseba, ki je invalid, in oseba, ki je očitna žrtev ali predmet diskriminacije, nista isti.
Does this render the Directive inapplicable?
Ali se Direktiva zato ne uporablja? Glede na analizo do te točke, menim, da se.
As the order for reference makes clear, she is not complaining of the impact a neutral measure had on her as the mother and carer of a disabled child, but claims that she was singled out and targeted by her employer precisely because of her disabled son.
Kot je pojasnjeno v predložitveni odločbi, se tožeča stranka ne pritožuje zaradi vpliva, ki ga je imel nevtralen ukrep nanjo kot mater invalidnega otroka, za katerega skrbi, ampak zatrjuje, da jo je delodajalec izločil in napadel ravno zaradi njenega invalidnega sina.
Therefore, the issue for the Court is whether direct discrimination by association is prohibited by the Directive.
Tako se za Sodi�če postavlja vpra�anje, ali je neposredna diskriminacija zaradi povezanosti prepovedana z Direktivo.
It is clear that had the claimant been disabled herself the Directive would have
Jasno je, da bi se Direktiva uporabljala, če bi bila tožeča stranka sama invalid. V
As stated, the effect of the Directive is that it is impermissible for an employer to rely on religion, age, disability and sexual orientation in order to treat some employees less well than others.
Kot je bilo navedeno, je učinek Direktive, da delodajalcu ni dovoljeno, da se sklicuje na vero, starost, invalidnost in spolno usmerjenost, da bi nekatere zaposlene osebe obravnaval manj ugodno od drugih.
To do so would amount to subjecting these individuals to unjust treatment and failing to respect their dignity and autonomy.
Če bi to storil, bi te posameznike krivično obravnaval in ne bi spo�toval njihovega dostojanstva in avtonomije.
This fact does not change in cases where the employee who is the object of discrimination is not disabled herself.
To dejstvo se ne spremeni v primerih, ko zaposlena oseba, ki je predmet diskriminacije, ni sama invalid.
The ground which serves as the basis of the discrimination she suffers continues to be disability.
Podlaga za diskriminacijo, katere žrtev je, je �e vedno invalidnost.
The Directive operates at the level of grounds of discrimination.
Direktiva deluje na ravni podlag za diskriminacijo.
The wrong that it was intended to remedy is the use of certain characteristics as grounds to treat some employees less well than others; what it does is to remove religion, age, disability and sexual orientation completely from the range of grounds an employer may legitimately use to treat some people less well.
Krivica, ki jo hoče popraviti, je uporaba določenih lastnosti kot podlag za manj ugodno obravnavanje nekaterih zaposlenih oseb od drugih; Direktiva namreč popolnoma izključuje vero, starost, invalidnost in spolno usmerjenost iz niza podlag, ki jih lahko delodajalec legitimno uporabi, da bi nekatere ljudi obravnaval manj ugodno.
Put differently, the Directive does not allow the hostility an employer may have against people belonging to the enumerated suspect classifications to function as the basis for any kind of less favourable treatment in the context of employment and occupation.
Z drugimi besedami, Direktiva ne dopu�ča, da bi sovražnost, ki jo delodajalec lahko čuti do ljudi, ki spadajo v na�tete sumljive kategorije, delovala kot podlaga za kakr�nokoli manj ugodno ravnanje v okviru zaposlovanja in dela.
In the former case, we think that such conduct is wrong and must be prohibited; the latter is exactly the same in every material aspect. In both cases, it is the hostility of the employer towards elderly, disabled or homosexual people or people of a certain religious persuasion that leads him to treat some employees less well.
COLEMAN obeh primerih je sovražnost delodajalca do starej�ih, invalidnih ali homoseksualnih ljudi ali ljudi z določenim verskim prepričanjem to, kar ga vodi k manj ugodnemu obravnavanju nekaterih zaposlenih oseb.
Finally, the United Kingdom Government has argued that the Directive was adopted with a view only to the setting of minimum standards.
Končno, vlada Združenega kraljestva je zatrjevala, da je bila Direktiva sprejeta z namenom določiti le minimalne standarde.
The fact that the Council was acting in an area where competence remains largely within the power of the Member States would, according to that Government, support such a view.
Dejstvo, da je Svet deloval na področju, kjer države članice v veliki meri ostajajo pristojne, naj bi po mnenju vlade podpiralo to trditev.
As a consequence, it is an issue for the Member States to decide whether or not to prohibit discrimination by association in the field of employment and occupation.
Tako bi morale države članice odločiti, ali se diskriminacija zaradi povezanosti na področju zaposlovanja in dela prepove ali ne.
I do not agree.
S tem se ne strinjam.
First, the fact that an area is not fully harmonised or that the Community has only limited competence to legislate in no way implies that the intervention of Community law, whatever this may be, must take place at the lowest level.
Prvič, dejstvo, da področje ni popolnoma usklajeno ali da ima Skupnost le omejeno zakonodajno pristojnost, nikakor ne pomeni, da mora do posredovanja prava Skupnosti, kakr�nokoli že naj bi bilo, priti na najnižji ravni.
In other words, the fact that the Community has a limited competence in the field of fundamental rights does not mean that when it decides to exercise that competence it can provide only minimum standards of fundamental rights protection.
Z drugimi besedami, dejstvo, da ima Skupnost omejeno pristojnost na področju temeljnih pravic, ne pomeni, da lahko določi le minimalne standarde varstva temeljnih pravic, če se odloči za izvr�evanje te pristojnosti.
Second, there is nothing in the Directive or its recitals indicating that such was the intention of the Council.
Drugič, iz Direktive ali njenih uvodnih izjav ne izhaja, da je bil to namen Sveta.
On the contrary, recital 6, for instance, refers to ‘the importance of combating every form of discrimination’ (my emphasis). 17
Nasprotno, v uvodni izjavi 6 je na primer navedena „pomembnost boja proti vsem oblikam diskriminacije“ (moj poudarek). 17
The equal treatment obligations that the Directive imposes may have costs, mainly for employers, and, to some extent, the imposition of those obligations entails a decision to socialise the costs through particular market mechanisms.
Ni treba, da je bil nekdo, ki je predmet diskriminacije, obravnavan slabo zaradi „lastne invalidnosti“.
This can be achieved in an efficient and equitable manner that does not distort competition only if those equal treatment obligations are interpreted and applied uniformly throughout the common market.
Zadostuje, da je bil slabo obravnavan zaradi „invalidnosti“.
If that were not the case we would be facing the risk of creating an uneven playing field in Europe, as the shape of the equal treatment obligations imposed on economic operators by Community law would not be the same throughout the common market but would depend on whether a par -ticular Member State has chosen to outlaw a specific type of discrimination.
Tako je v skladu z Direktivo nekdo lahko žrtev nezakonite diskriminacije, ne da bi bil sam invalid; pomembno je, da je bila ta invalidnost – v obravnavani zadevi invalidnost sina S. Coleman – uporabljena kot razlog, da je bil manj ugodno obravnavan.
It is not necessary for someone who is the object of discrimination to have been mistreated on account of ‘her disability’.
Coleman dokaže, da je bila obravnavana manj ugodno zaradi invalidnosti svojega sina, se torej lahko sklicuje na Direktivo.
It is enough if she was mistreated on account of ‘disability’.
17 – Obstaja �e nadaljnji razlog, ki nasprotuje trditvi Združenega kraljestva.
Thus, one can be a victim of unlawful discrimination on the ground of disability under the Directive without being disabled oneself; what is important is that that disability — in this case the disability of Ms Coleman’s son — was used as a reason to treat her less well.
Obveznosti enakega obravnavanja, ki so določene v Direktivi, lahko povzročijo stro�ke, v glavnem za delodajalce, in do določene mere določitev teh obveznosti prina�a s sabo odločitev o porazdelitvi teh stro�kov na družbo s posebnimi tržnimi mehanizmi.
The Directive does not come into play only when the claimant is disabled herself but every time there is an instance of less favourable treatment because of disability.
To se lahko doseže na učinkovit in pravičen način, ki ne izkrivlja konkurence, samo če se te obveznosti enakega obravnavanja razlagajo in uporabljajo enotno na celotnem skupnem trgu.
Therefore, if Ms Coleman can prove that she was treated less favourably because of her son’s disability she should be able to rely on the Directive.
V nasprotnem primeru bi se soočali s tveganjem, da bi ustvarili neenako igri�če v Evropi, ker oblika obveznosti enakega obravna -vanja, ki jo za gospodarske subjekte določa pravo Skupnosti, ne bi bila ista na celotnem skupnem trgu, ampak bi bi bila odvisna od tega, ali je določena država članica prepovedala določeno vrsto diskriminacije.