natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
At the outset, it should be stated that, according to the first paragraph of Article 3 of Directive 80/987, Member States are to take the measures necessary to ensure that the guarantee institutions guarantee, subject to Article 4 of that directive, payment of employees’ outstanding claims resulting from contracts of employment or employment relationships, including, where provided for by national law, severance pay on termination of employment relationships.
Najprej je treba opozoriti, da v skladu s členom 3, prvi odstavek, Direktive 80/987 države članice sprejmejo potrebne ukrepe, da zagotovijo, da jamstvene ustanove ob upo�tevanju člena 4 te direktive jamčijo plačilo neporavnanih terjatev delavcev, ki izhajajo iz pogodb o zaposlitvi ali delovnih razmerij, ki vključujejo, kadar to zahteva nacionalna zakonodaja, odpravnino ob prenehanju delovnega razmerja.
It follows that the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings falls within the scope of Directive 80/987, since it brings the payment of severance pay on termination of the employment relationship within the protection granted by the competent guarantee institution, despite the fact that that institution is in no way required
Iz tega izhaja, da nacionalna zakonodaja v postopku v glavni stvari spada na področje uporabe Direktive 80/987, ker v skladu z njo plačilo odpravnine ob prenehanju delovnega razmerja izhaja iz varstva pristojne jamstvene ustanove, čeprav slednja
As workers who have been unfairly dismissed are in a comparable situation in so far as they are entitled to compensation when they are not reinstated (see Rodríguez Caballero, paragraph 33, and Olaso Valero, paragraph 35), it follows that the compensation for dismissal recognised in the extrajudicial conciliation procedure cannot be treated differently from other compensation due by denying them the compensation falling under Article 33(2) of the Workers’ Statute, unless that difference in treatment can be objectively justified (see, to that effect, the order in Guerrero Pecino, paragraphs 26 and 28, and Olaso Valero, paragraphs 34 and 36).
Ob upo�tevanju tega, da so nezakonito odpu�čeni delavci v primerljivem položaju, ker imajo, če jim ni omogočena vrnitev na delo, pravico do od�kodnine (glej zgoraj navedeni sodbi Rodríguez Caballero, točka 33, in Olaso Valero, točka 35), se od�kodnina zaradi odpovedi delovnega razmerja, priznana v postopku izvensodne poravnave, naj ne bi obravnavala drugače kot druge dolgovane od�kodnine, pri čemer bi bile od�kodnine iz člena 33(2) zakona o delovnih razmerjih izključene, razen če ta razlika v obravnavanju ne bi bila objektivno utemeljena (glej v tem smislu zgoraj navedeni sklep Guerrero Pecino, točki 26 in 28, in zgoraj navedeno sodbo Olaso Valero, točki 34 in 36).
With regard to such a justification, it should be noted that Article 10(a) of Directive 80/987 confers on Member States the right to adopt necessary measures to avoid abuses (see Rodríguez Caballero, paragraph 36).
V zvezi s tako utemeljitvijo je treba opozoriti, da člen 10(a) Direktive 80/987 državam članicam daje možnost, da sprejmejo ukrepe za preprečevanje zlorab (glej zgoraj navedeno sodbo Rodríguez Caballero, točka 36).
Accordingly, Spanish law provides that compensation for dismissal granted following an extrajudicial conciliation procedure is excluded from benefiting from Fogasa’s assumption of responsibility.
Špansko pravo zato določa, da so od�kodnine zaradi odpovedi delovnega razmerja, odobrene v postopku izvensodne poravnave, izključene iz kritja Fogase.
Such exclusion cannot be considered necessary in order to attain the objective pursued by Article 10(a) where the guarantee institution has sufficient means to enable it to avoid abuse.
Taka izključitev se ne �teje za potrebno za dosego cilja, ki ga zasleduje navedeni člen 10(a), kadar jamstvena ustanova razpolaga z zadostnimi elementi za preprečevanje zlorab.
According to the caselaw of the Court, such is particularly the case where the conciliation is supervised by a judicial body (see, to that effect, Rodríguez Caballero, paragraphs 36 and 37, and Olaso Valero, paragraph 37).
V skladu s sodno prakso Sodi�ča je tako zlasti v primeru, ko poravnavo nadzoruje sodni organ (glej v tem smislu zgoraj navedeni sodbi Rodríguez Caballero, točki 36 in 37, ter Olaso Valero, točka 37).
In that regard, the Spanish Government is of the view that extrajudicial conciliation is not comparable to judicial conciliation because it does not include sufficient guarantees for the avoidance of abuse.
Španska vlada v zvezi s tem meni, da izvensodna poravnava ni primerljiva s sodno poravnavo, ker ne zajema zadostnih jamstev, ki bi omogočala preprečevanje zlorab.
Conversely, the Commission of the European Communities considers that the difference in treatment described in the order for reference lacks any objective justification.
Nasprotno Komisija Evropskih skupnosti meni, da razlika v obravnavanju, na katero je bilo opozorjeno v predložitveni odločbi, ni objektivno utemeljena.
Fogasa is invested with appropriate and sufficient means to detect and prevent fraud in specific cases.
Fogasa naj bi imela ustrezna in zadostna sredstva za odkrivanje in preprečevanje goljufij v konkretnih primerih.
First, it should be noted that, according to the order for reference, an agreement on compensation for dismissal concluded during extrajudicial conciliation proceedings occurs without the involvement of any judicial body.
Najprej je treba opozoriti, da je v skladu s predložitveno odločbo sporazum v zvezi z od�kodnino zaradi odpovedi delovnega razmerja, sklenjen v postopku izvensodne poravnave, sklenjen v odsotnosti kakr�negakoli sodnega organa.
In particular, the drawing up of such an agreement is not supervised by a judge.
Priprave takega sporazuma ne nadzoruje sodnik.
As is clear, in particular, from Article 10 of Royal Decree 2756/1979, the conciliator is not invested with powers which allow him to influence the conciliation procedure.
Kot izhaja zlasti iz člena 10 navedenega kraljevega dekreta 2756/1979, posrednik nima pooblastil, ki bi mu omogočala vpliv na postopek poravnave.
In that respect, it must be pointed out that Article 23 of the LPL makes no provision for intervention by Fogasa during the extrajudicial conciliation procedure.
V tem smislu je treba poudariti, da člen 23 LPL v postopku izvensodne poravnave ne določa intervencije Fogase.
Unlike the judicial conciliation procedure, the guarantee institution is not authorised to participate in an extrajudicial conciliation procedure.
Za razliko od postopka sodne poravnave jamstveni ustanovi sodelovanje v postopku izvensodne poravnave ni odobreno.
Consequently, Fogasa is not, in practice, in a position to become aware of circumstances constituting abuse or fraud.
Zato se Fogasa dejansko ne more seznaniti z okoli�činami, ki bi lahko bile bistvene za zlorabo ali goljufijo.
Likewise, Fogasa’s participation in the procedure for declaring the employer concerned insolvent does not permit it to challenge a claim relating to compensation for dismissal which it suspects was established abusively.
Sodelovanje Fogase v postopku ugotovitve plačilne nesposobnosti zadevnega delodajalca tej ustanovi ne omogoča niti tega, da bi nasprotovala terjatvi v zvezi z od�kodnino zaradi odpovedi delovnega razmerja, ki naj bi bila določena z zlorabo.
It is clear from Articles 274 and 275 of the LPL that that procedure only concerns the employer’s insolvency and the declaration to that effect.
Iz členov 274 in 275 LPL izhaja, da se ta postopek nana�a le na obstoj plačilne nesposobnosti delodajalca in njeno ugotovitev.
Conversely, once the insolvency is declared, the procedure does not have the objective of reviewing the legality of the claims for which Fogasa is responsible.
Kadar pa se ugotovi plačilna nesposobnost, cilj navedenega postopka ni nadzor nad zakonitostjo terjatev, ki jih krije Fogasa.
Second, according to Royal Decree 2756/1979, extrajudicial conciliation settlement leading to an agreement on compensation for dismissal takes place before the Centre for Mediation, Arbitration and Conciliation.
Drugič, v skladu s kraljevim dekretom 2756/1979 se sporazum o izvensodni poravnavi, v okviru katere naj bi bil sprejet sporazum o od�kodninah zaradi odpovedi delovnega razmerja, sklepa pred organi Centra za mediacijo, arbitražo in poravnavo.
The agreement so concluded is not subject to the approval of a judicial body since the conciliator, unlike a judicial body pursuant to Article 84 of the LPL in a judicial conciliation, is not empowered to review the content of the agreement.
Ker tako sklenjen sporazum ni podvržen odobritvi sodnega organa, posrednik ni pristojen nadzorovati vsebine sporazuma, kot lahko to na podlagi člena 84 LPL stori sodni organ v postopku sodne poravnave.
With regard, third, to the possibility of the guarantee institution refusing, by reasoned decision, to pay the compensation for dismissal for which it is responsible (see, to that effect, Rodríguez Caballero, paragraph 36), it is clear from Article 28.3 of Royal Decree 505/1985 that such an institution is only empowered actually to reject the request for payment if it is able, for example in any subsequent judicial procedure, to adduce evidence of circumstances supporting a finding of abuse within the meaning of that provision.
Tretjič, v zvezi z možnostjo, da jamstvena ustanova z obrazloženo odločbo zavrne plačilo od�kodnine zaradi odpovedi delovnega razmerja, ki ji je bila naložena (glej v tem smislu zgoraj navedeno sodbo Rodríguez Caballero, točka 36), iz člena 28(3) kraljevega dekreta 505/1985 izhaja, da je taka ustanova pristojna zahtevo za plačilo dejansko zavrniti zgolj, če lahko na primer v morebitnem kasnej�em sodnem postopku predloži dokaz o okoli�činah, ki omogočajo ugotovitev obstoja zlorabe v smislu te določbe.
However, in practice, it is hard to imagine how the guarantee institution concerned could, where appropriate, establish and prove such circumstances, since it is not permitted to take part in the extrajudicial conciliation procedure.
V praksi si je težko predstavljati, kako bo lahko zadevna jamstvena ustanova, če je potrebno, take okoli�čine ugotovila in dokazala, če v postopku izvensodne poravnave ni pristojna sodelovati.
That is equally true with regard to the power of the guarantee institution to bring an action under Article 67(1) of the LPL.
Enako velja glede pristojnosti jamstvene ustanove, da vloži tožbo na podlagi člena 67(1) LPL.
It must therefore be held that compensation for dismissal recognised by an extrajudicial conciliation settlement does not offer sufficient guarantees of the avoidance of abuse, unlike compensation in a conciliation procedure carried out in the presence of a judicial body, in which the guarantee institution has the right to intervene.
Ugotoviti je treba, da od�kodnine zaradi odpovedi delovnega razmerja, priznane v sporazumu o izvensodni poravnavi, ne ponujajo zadostnega jamstva za preprečevanje zlorab, v nasprotju s tistimi, ki so določene v postopku poravnave, ki se izvede ob prisotnosti sodnega organa in v kateri ima jamstvena ustanova pravico intervenirati.
That conclusion is not called into question by legislation on ‘salarios de tramitación’ appearing in Article 33(1) of the Workers’ Statute which does not provide protection equivalent to that relating to the compensation awarded pursuant to Article 33(2) of the Workers’ Statute in order to avoid abuses.
Te ugotovitve ne izpodbija ureditev v zvezi s „salarios de tramitación“ iz člena 33(1) zakona o delovnih razmerjih, ki ne določa varstva, enakovrednega varstvu v zvezi z od�kodninami na podlagi člena 33(2) zakona o delovnih razmerjih, za preprečevanje zlorab.
In that regard, it is clear from the order for reference that, by its question, the national court also wishes to know whether, for the compensation provided for in Article 33(2), the protection measure at issue is actually ‘necessary’ within the meaning of Article 10(a) of Directive 80/987.
V zvezi s tem iz predložitvene odločbe izhaja, da se vpra�anje, ki ga je postavilo nacionalno sodi�če, nana�a tudi na to, ali je za od�kodnine iz navedenega člena 33(2) zadevni varstveni ukrep dejansko potreben v smislu člena 10(a) Direktive 80/987.
In that regard, it should be noted that, when they are recognised in an extrajudicial conciliation settlement, claims such as ‘salarios de tramitación’, by their very nature, are not generally liable to be fixed in circumstances where there is abuse.
V zvezi s tem je treba ugotoviti, da terjatve, kot so „salarios de tramitación“, zaradi svojih lastnosti na splo�no ne morejo biti določene v okoli�činah zlorabe, kadar so priznane v sporazumu o izvensodni poravnavi.
As such claims are calculated and established according to objective criteria, they do not leave the parties a sufficiently wide discretion to encourage abuses when they are determined, unlike compensation calculated in accordance with Article 33(2) of the Workers’ Statute.
Ker se take terjatve izračunajo in določijo ob upo�tevanju objektivnih meril, za razliko od od�kodnin, izračunanih na podlagi člena 33(2) zakona o delovnih razmerjih, strankam ne dajejo dovolj velike svobode, da bi pri�lo do zlorabe pri njihovi določitvi.
The need to exclude compensation recognised in an extrajudicial conciliation settlement from the guarantee by the guarantee institution of payment of outstanding claims cannot therefore be called into question in the light of the treatment from which claims such as ‘salarios de tramitación’ benefit.
Potreba po izključitvi od�kodnin, priznanih v sporazumu o izvensodni poravnavi, iz jamstev za plačilo terjatev, ki jih jamstvena ustanova �e ni plačala, torej ne more biti pod vpra�ajem ob upo�tevanju obravnavanja, ki so ga deležne terjatve, kot so „salarios de tramitación“.
In the light of all the foregoing considerations, the answer to the question referred by the national court must be that the first paragraph of Article 3 of Directive 80/987 is to be interpreted as meaning that a Member State has the power to exclude compensation granted for unfair dismissal from the payment guarantee of the guarantee institutions pursuant to that provision where they have been recognised by an extrajudicial conciliation settlement and such exclusion, objectively justified, constitutes a measure necessary to avoid abuses within the meaning of Article 10(a) of that directive.
Ob upo�tevanju zgoraj navedenega je treba na vpra�anje, ki ga je postavilo nacionalno sodi�če, odgovoriti, da je treba člen 3, prvi odstavek, Direktive 80/987 razlagati tako, da ima država članica možnost, da od�kodnine, odobrene za nezakonito odpoved delovnega razmerja, izključi iz jamstva za plačilo, ki ga zagotavlja jamstvena ustanova na podlagi te določbe, kadar so bile te od�kodnine priznane v sporazumu o izvensodni poravnavi, in da taka objektivno utemeljena izključitev pomeni ukrep, potreben za preprečevanje zlorab v smislu člena 10(a) te direktive.
The first paragraph of Article 3 of Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer, as amended by Directive 2002/74/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002, is to be interpreted as meaning that a Member State has the power to exclude compensation granted for unfair dismissal from the payment guarantee of the guarantee institutions pursuant to that provision where they have been recognised by an extrajudicial conciliation settlement and such exclusion, objectively justified, constitutes a measure necessary to avoid abuses within the meaning of Article 10(a) of that directive.
Člen 3, prvi adstavek, Direktive Sveta 80/987/EGS z dne 20. oktobra 1980 o približevanju zakonodaje držav članic o varstvu delavcev v primeru plačilne nesposobnosti njihovega delodajalca, kot je bila spremenjena z Direktivo 2002/74/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 23. septembra 2002, je treba razlagati tako, da ima država članica možnost, da odškodnine, odobrene za nezakonito odpoved delovnega razmerja, izključi iz jamstva za plačilo, ki ga zagotavlja jamstvena ustanova na podlagi te določbe, kadar so bile te odškodnine priznane v sporazumu o izvensodni poravnavi, in da taka objektivno utemeljena izključitev pomeni ukrep, potreben za preprečevanje zlorab v smislu člena 10(a) te direktive.
Case C-507/06
Zadeva C-507/06
(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Innsbruck)
(Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, ki ga je vložilo Oberlandesgericht Innsbruck)
(Entitlement to childcare allowance in Austria — Periods of drawing family benefits in another Member State not taken into account — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71)
„Pravica do avstrijskega nadomestila za varstvo otroka – Neupo�tevanje obdobij prejemanja družinskih dajatev v drugi državi članici – Uredba (EGS) �t. 1408/71“
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber), 21 February 2008 . . . . . .
Sodba Sodi�ča (drugi senat) z dne 21. februarja 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . I - 945
Social security for migrant workers — Equal treatment — Childcare allowance(Council Regulation No 1408/71, Art. 3(1))
Socialna varnost delavcev migrantov – Enako obravnavanje – Nadomestilo za varstvo otroka(Uredba Sveta št. 1408/71, člen 3(1))
SUMMARY — CASE C-507/06
POVZETEK – ZADEVA C-507/06
Article 3(1) of Regulation No 1408/71 precludes a Member State from refusing to take into account, for the purposes of granting a family benefit such as childcare allowance, the period during which a comparable benefit was drawn in another Member State as if that period had been completed in its own territory.
Člen 3(1) Uredbe �t. 1408/71 nasprotuje temu, da država članica pri odobritvi družinske dajatve, kakr�no je nadomestilo za varstvo otroka, ne upo�teva obdobja prejemanja primerljive dajatve v drugi državi članici na enak način, kot če bi bilo dopolnjeno na njenem ozemlju.
also all covert forms of discrimination which, through the application of other distinguishing criteria, lead in fact to the same result.
oblike diskriminacije, ki z uporabo drugih razlikovalnih meril dejansko privedejo do enakega rezultata.
Accordingly, conditions imposed by national law must be regarded as indirectly discriminatory where, although applicable irrespective of nationality, they affect essentially migrant workers or the great majority of those affected are migrant workers, where they are applicable without distinction but can more easily be satisfied by national workers than by migrant workers, or where there is a risk that they may operate to the particular detriment of the latter.
Tako je treba �teti, da so posredno diskriminatorni, čeprav veljajo brez razlikovanja glede na državljanstvo, pogoji nacionalnega prava, ki v glavnem ali v veliki večini prizadenejo delavce migrante, kot tudi pogoji, ki veljajo brez razlikovanja, a jih domači delavci lažje izpolnijo kot delavci migranti, in pogoji, pri katerih obstaja nevarnost, da bodo učinkovali v breme zlasti delavcev migrantov.
The principle of nondiscrimination, as laid down in Article 39(2) EC and implemented, as far as concerns social security for migrant workers, by Article 3(1) of Regulation No 1408/71, prohibits not only overt discrimination based on the nationality of the beneficiaries of social security schemes but
Načelo prepovedi diskriminacije, kot je določeno v členu 39(2) ES in konkretizirano na področju socialne varnosti delavcev migrantov z zgoraj navedenim členom 3(1), namreč ne prepoveduje le očitne diskriminacije na podlagi državljanstva upravičencev do socialne varnosti, ampak tudi vse prikrite
(see paras 17, 18, 22, operative part)
(Glej točke 17, 18, 22 in izrek.)
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Second Chamber)21 February 2008 *
SODBA SODIŠČA (drugi senat) z dne 21. februarja 2008 *
REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Oberlandesgericht Innsbruck (Austria), made by decision of 30 November 2006, received at the Court on 13 December 2006, in the proceedings
V zadevi C-507/06, katere predmet je predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe na podlagi člena 234 ES, ki ga je vložilo Oberlandesgericht Innsbruck (Avstrija) z odločbo z dne 30. novembra 2006, ki je prispela na Sodi�če 13. decembra 2006, v postopku
2008 — CASE C-507/06
2008 – ZADEVA C-507/06 generalni pravobranilec: P. Mengozzi, sodni tajnik: R.
— the Austrian Government, by C. Pesendorfer, acting as Agent,
– za avstrijsko vlado C. Pesendorfer, zastopnica,
— the Commission of the European Communities, by V. Kreuschitz, acting as Agent, having decided, after hearing the Advocate General, to proceed to judgment without an Opinion,
– za Komisijo Evropskih skupnosti V. Kreuschitz, zastopnik, na podlagi sklepa, sprejetega po opredelitvi generalnega pravobranilca, da bo v zadevi razsojeno brez sklepnih predlogov,
KLÖPPEL gives the following
KLÖPPEL izreka naslednjo
1), as amended in turn by Regulation (EC) No 1386/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2001 (OJ 2001 L 187, p.
1), kot je bila spremenjena z Uredbo (ES) �t. 1386/2001 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 5. junija 2001 (UL L 187, str.
17) (‘Regulation No 574/72’).
17, v nadaljevanju: Uredba �t. 574/72).
The reference has been made in the course of proceedings between Ms Klöppel and the Tiroler Gebietskrankenkasse (Tyrol Regional Health Insurance Fund) concerning the duration of the period during which Ms Klöppel is entitled to receive childcare allowance in Austria.
Ta predlog je bil vložen v okviru spora med M. Klöppel in Tiroler Gebietskrankenkasse v zvezi s trajanjem obdobja, med katerim lahko zainteresirana oseba v Avstriji prejema nadomestilo za varstvo otroka.
2008 — CASE C-507/06
2008 – ZADEVA C-507/06
As set out in Article 3 of Regulation No 1408/71, headed ‘Equality of treatment’:
Člen 3 Uredbe �t. 1408/71 z naslovom „Enako obravnavanje“ določa:
Subject to the special provisions of this Regulation, persons resident in the territory of one of the Member States to whom this Regulation applies shall be subject to the same obligations and enjoy the same benefits under the legislation of any Member State as the nationals of that State.
Ob upo�tevanju posebnih določb te uredbe imajo osebe s stalnim prebivali�čem na ozemlju ene od držav članic, za katere se uporablja ta uredba, enake pravice in obveznosti po zakonodaji vsake države članice, kot državljani te države članice.
Article 4 of Regulation No 1408/71, headed ‘Matters covered’, provides:
Člen 4 Uredbe �t. 1408/71 z naslovom „Stvarna veljavnost“ določa:
(h) family benefits.
(h) družinske dajatve.
Article 72 of Regulation No 1408/71, headed ‘Aggregation of periods of insurance, employment or self-employment’, provides:
Člen 72 Uredbe �t. 1408/71 z naslovom „Se�tevanje zavarovalnih dob, dob zaposlitve ali samozaposlitve“ določa:
‘Where the legislation of a Member State makes acquisition of the right to benefits conditional upon completion of periods of insurance, employment or self-employ-ment, the competent institution of that State shall take into account for this purpose, to the extent necessary, periods of insurance, employment or self-employment completed in any other Member State, as if they were periods completed under the legislation which it administers.’
„Kadar zakonodaja države članice pogojuje pridobitev pravice do dajatev z dopolnitvijo zavarovalne dobe, dobe zaposlitve ali samozaposlitve, pristojni nosilec te države članice v potrebni meri upo�teva tudi zavarovalne dobe, dobe zaposlitve ali samozaposlitve, dopolnjene v katerikoli drugi državi članici, kot če bi bile dopolnjene po zakonodaji, ki jo izvaja.“
Under Article 10a of Regulation No 574/72, headed ‘Rules applicable where an employed or selfemployed person is subject successively to the legislation of several Member States during the same period or part of a period’:
Člen 10a Uredbe �t. 574/72 z naslovom „Pravila, ki se uporabijo, kadar za zaposleno ali samozaposleno osebo zaporedno veljajo zakonodaje več držav članic v istem obdobju ali delu obdobja“ določa: