natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
To my mind, it cannot be said that the legislature has manifestly exceeded the limits of its discretion.
Menim, da ni mogoče trditi, da je zakonodajalec s tem očitno prekoračil meje svoje diskrecijske pravice.
In the light of the foregoing considerations, I propose that the Court of Justice:
Glede na zgoraj navedeno Sodi�ču predlagam, naj razsodi:
APPEAL under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, lodged on 8 February 2007,
V zadevi C-71/07 P, zaradi pritožbe na podlagi člena 56 Statuta Sodi�ča, vložene 8. februarja 2007,
2008 — CASE C-71/07 P
2008 – ZADEVA C-71/07 P
Advocate General: P. Mengozzi, Registrar: R. Grass, having regard to the written procedure, after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 8 April 2008,
Grass, na podlagi pisnega postopka, po predstavitvi sklepnih predlogov generalnega pravobranilca na obravnavi 8. aprila 2008
CAMPOLI v COMMISSION gives the following
CAMPOLI PROTI KOMISIJI izreka naslednjo
The second subparagraph of Article 82(1) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities, in the version applicable before 1 May 2004 (‘the old Staff Regulations’), provided that pensions were to be weighted at the rate fixed for the country inside the Communities where the recipient proves he has his residence.
Člen 82(1), drugi pododstavek, Kadrovskih predpisov za uradnike Evropskih skupnosti je v različici, ki je veljala pred 1. majem 2004 (v nadaljevanju: prej�nji kadrovski predpisi), določal, da se pokojnine ponderirajo po stopnji, določeni za državo v Skupnosti, v kateri prejemnik dokazano prebiva.
Since no specific provision of the old Staff Regulations laid down the method of calculating the correction coefficients applicable to pensions, in practice, the correction coefficients applied were those calculated for the remuneration of officials in active employment pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 64 of and Annex XI to the old Staff Regulations, that is to say, according to a method intended to ensure the same purchasing power irrespective of the place in which officials were employed.
Ker nobena posebna določba prej�njih kadrovskih predpisov ni določala metode za izračun korekcijskih koeficientov, ki se uporabijo za pokojnine, so se te ponderirale s korekcijskimi koeficienti, izračunanimi za osebne prejemke uradnikov na podlagi člena 64, prvi odstavek, Kadrovskih predpisov in na podlagi priloge XI k tem kadrovskim predpisom, torej na podlagi metode, katere namen je zagotoviti enako kupno moč ne glede na kraj zaposlitve uradnikov.
That method reflected the average difference for a typical official between the cost
Ta metoda je sku�ala upo�tevati povprečno razliko, za običajnega uradnika, med življenjskimi stro�ki v glavnem mestu države
2008 — CASE C-71/07 P of living in the capital of the country in which he was employed and the cost of living in Brussels (Belgium) (the ‘capital method’).
2008 – ZADEVA C-71/07 P njegove zaposlitve in življenjskimi stro�ki v Bruslju (Belgija) (v nadaljevanju: metoda „glavnega mesta“).
With regard to pensioners, the reference factor was the cost of living in the capital of the country of residence compared to the cost of living in Brussels.
Podlago v zvezi s pokojninami so predstavljali življenjski stro�ki v glavnem mestu države bivali�ča v primerjavi z življenjskimi stro�ki v Bruslju.
1) extensively reformed the old Staff Regulations.
1) so bile uvedene ob�irne spremembe prej�njih kadrovskih predpisov.
One of the changes made by that regulation was the abolition, from 1 May 2004, of the correction coefficients applied to pensions.
Ena izmed sprememb, uvedenih s to uredbo, se nana�a na odpravo korekcijskih koeficientov za pokojnine s 1. majem 2004.
By way of explanation, recital 30 in the preamble to Regulation No 723/2004 states as follows:
V utemeljitev trideseta uvodna izjava Uredbe �t. 723/2004 določa:
‘Deepened integration of the European Union and the free choice of pensioners of their place of residence within the European Union has made the system of correction coefficients for pensions obsolete.
„Poglobljeno povezovanje Evropske unije in svobodna izbira kraja prebivanja upokojencev v Evropski uniji sta povzročili, da je postal sistem korekcijskih koeficientov pokojnin zastarel.
This system has also created monitoring problems as regards the place of residence of pensioners which should be overcome.
Ta sistem je povzročal tudi težave pri spremljanju kraja prebivanja upokojencev, ki jih je treba preseči.
This system should therefore be abolished with an appropriate transition for pensioners and officials recruited before the entry into force of this Regulation.’
Zato je treba sistem odpraviti s primernim prehodom za upokojence in uradnike, zaposlene pred začetkom veljavnosti te uredbe.“
Consequently, the second subparagraph of Article 82(1) and Article 82(3) of the Staff Regulations, in the version in force from 1 May 2004 (‘the new Staff Regulations’), provide that no correction coefficient is to be applicable to pensions or invalidity allowances.
Zato člen 82(1), drugi pododstavek, in 82(3), v različici, ki velja od 1. maja 2004 (v nadaljevanju: novi Kadrovski predpisi), določa, da se za pokojnine in invalidnine ne uporablja korekcijskega koeficienta.
The abolition of the correction coefficients does not affect officials who retired before 1 May 2004.
Ta odprava korekcijskih koeficientov ne velja za uradnike, ki so se upokojili pred 1. majem 2004.
Thus, the first subparagraph of Article 20(1) of Annex XIII to the new Staff Regulations states that the pensions of those officials are to remain subject to the correction coefficient for the Member State in which they have established proven main residence.
Tako člen 20(1), prvi pododstavek, priloge XIII k novim Kadrovskim predpisom določa, da se za pokojnine teh uradnikov uporablja korekcijski koeficient, določen za države članice, v katerih dokazano stalno prebivajo.
According to Article 20(4) of Annex XIII to the new Staff Regulations, the transitional arrangements concerning correction coefficients are also to apply to invalidity allowances.
V skladu s členom 20(4) priloge XIII k novim Kadrovskim predpisom se prehodna ureditev v zvezi s korekcijskimi koeficienti uporablja tudi za invalidnine.
According to Article 1(3)(a) and Article 3(5)(b) of Annex XI to the new Staff Regulations, the correction coefficients applicable under the transitional arrangements are to be determined on the basis of the average difference between the cost of living in the Member State in which the pensioner in question resides and the cost of living in Belgium (the ‘country method’), whereas the ‘capital method’ is still applied to the salaries of officials in active employment.
Korekcijski koeficienti, ki se uporabijo na podlagi te prehodne ureditve, se v skladu s členoma 1(3)(a) in 3(5)(b) priloge XI k novim Kadrovskim predpisom določijo ob upo�tevanju povprečne razlike med življenjskimi stro�ki v državi, kjer zadevni upokojenec prebiva, in življenjskimi stro�ki v Belgiji (v nadaljevanju: metoda „države“), medtem ko se metoda „glavnega mesta“ �e vedno uporabi v zvezi z osebnimi prejemki zaposlenih uradnikov.
In order to facilitate the transfer, for the pensioners concerned, from the ‘capital method’ to the new ‘country method’, the latter was introduced gradually over a four-year transitional period.
Za olaj�anje prehoda zadevnim upokojencem z metode „glavnega mesta“ na novo metodo „države“, se slednja v �tiriletnem prehodnem obdobju uvaja postopoma.
For that purpose, Article 20(2) of Annex XIII to the new Staff Regulations provided that the relative composition of the pensions was to be varied in accordance with the following timetable:
V tem smislu člen 20 priloge XIII k novim Kadrovskim predpisom razvr�ča sorazmerno sestavo zneska pokojnin v skladu z naslednjim časovnim zaporedjem:
— From 1 May 2004: 80% ‘capital method’ and 20% ‘country method’;
– od 1. maja 2004: 80 % po metodi „glavnega mesta“ in 20 % po metodi „države“;
— From 1 May 2005: 60% ‘capital method’ and 40% ‘country method’;
– od 1. maja 2005: 60 % po metodi „glavnega mesta“ in 40 % po metodi „države“;
— From 1 May 2006: 40% ‘capital method’ and 60% ‘country method’;
– od 1. maja 2006: 40 % po metodi „glavnega mesta“ in 60 % po metodi „države“;
— From 1 May 2007: 20% ‘capital method’ and 80% ‘country method’;
– od 1. maja 2007: 20 % po metodi „glavnega mesta“ in 80 % po metodi „države“;
— From 1 May 2008: 100% ‘country method’.
– od 1. maja 2008: 100 % po metodi „države“.
In addition, the second subparagraph of Article 24(2) of Annex XIII to the new Staff Regulations guarantees payment of the nominal amount of net pension payable before 1 May 2004.
Poleg tega člen 24(2), drugi pododstavek, priloge XIII k novim Kadrovskim predpisom zagotavlja znesek nominalne pokojnine, prejet pred 1. majem 2004.
From his retirement in February 2003, the appellant received an invalidity allowance pursuant to Articles 53 and 78 of the old Staff Regulations which, in accordance with Article 82 thereof, was weighted at the rate fixed for the country in which the recipient proved he had his residence, namely, the United Kingdom, since he had settled in London and bought a house there.
Od upokojitve februarja 2003 je pritožnik prejemal invalidsko pokojnino na podlagi členov 53 in 78 starih Kadrovskih predpisov, ki je bila v skladu s členom 82 teh kadrovskih predpisov ponderirana s korekcijskim koeficientom, določenim za državo, v kateri prejemnik dokazano prebiva, in sicer Združeno kraljestvo, saj se je prejemnik nastanil v Londonu, kjer je kupil hi�o.
From 1 January 2004, the appellant’s invalidity allowance was therefore weighted at the rate of 139.6% set for the United Kingdom.
Od 1. januarja 2004 je bila tako invalidska pokojnina pritožnika ponderirana s korekcijskim koeficientom po stopnji 139,6 % za Združeno kraljestvo.
The correction coefficient was calculated in accordance with the ‘capital method’, so as to reflect the difference in the cost of living between London and Brussels.
Ta korekcijski koeficient je bil izračunan po metodi „glavnega mesta“, tako da je upo�teval razliko med življenjskimi stro�ki v Londonu in Bruslju.
By letter of 13 May 2004, the Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements of the Commission of the European Communities informed the appellant of the effects on his pension rights of the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations.
Z dopisom z dne 13. maja 2004 je Urad za „upravljanje in izplačevanje posameznih dajatev“ Komisije Evropskih skupnosti obvestil pritožnika o posledicah, ki jih ima začetek veljavnosti novih Kadrovskih predpisov za njegove pokojninske pravice.
That letter indicated, inter alia, that the appellant’s pension rights would not be altered if his pension had been determined before May 2004.
V tem dopisu je bilo zlasti navedeno, da se pokojninske pravice pritožnika ne bi spremenile, če bi bila njegova pokojnina določena pred majem 2004.
However, the appellant noticed that the amount he received was being reduced under the new Staff Regulations, since the correction coefficient applied to pensions paid to
Pritožnik se je zavedel tega, da so se njegovi prejemki na podlagi novih Kadrovskih predpisov zmanj�ali, ker je bil korekcijski koeficient, ki je veljal za pokojnine, izpla-
CAMPOLI v COMMISSION former officials residing in London was being gradually abolished and replaced by a new, lower, correction coefficient.
CAMPOLI PROTI KOMISIJI čane nekdanjim uradnikom, ki prebivajo v Londonu, postopoma odpravljen in nadome�čen z novim korekcijskim koeficientom, manj�im od prej�njega.
Consequently, on 20 August 2004, the appellant submitted a complaint to the Appointing Authority under Article 90 of the new Staff Regulations against the Commission decision constituted by the pension statements for the months of May, June and July 2004.
Pritožnik je zato 20. avgusta 2004 pri organu, pristojnem za imenovanja (v nadaljevanju: OPI), vložil pritožbo na podlagi člena 90 Kadrovskih predpisov zoper odločbo Komisije, katere predmet so bili pokojninski odrezki za maj, junij in julij 2004.
He claimed that the reduction of his pension rights, unjustified in his opinion, and in particular of the correction coefficient, infringed a number of general principles of law.
Trdil je, da je bilo z zmanj�anjem – po njegovem mnenju neupravičenim – njegovih pokojninskih pravic in zlasti korekcijskega koeficienta kr�enih več splo�nih pravnih načel.
By decision of 13 December 2004, the Commission rejected the complaint (the ‘contested decision’).
Z odločbo z dne 13. decembra 2004 je Komisija zavrnila to pritožbo v upravnem postopku (v nadaljevanju: sporna odločba).
III — The judgment under appeal
III – Izpodbijana sodba
In the judgment under appeal, the Court of First Instance dismissed the appellant’s action for the annulment of the contested decision, together with, first, the decision of the Appointing Authority which was challenged in the appellant’s complaint and altered the correction coefficient, the household allowance and the education allowance applicable to his pension on 1 May 2004 and, second, his pension statements to the extent that they applied that decision from May 2004.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je z izpodbijano sodbo zavrnilo pritožbo pritožnika v zvezi z razglasitvijo ničnosti sporne odločbe, sprejete skupaj s, prvič, odločbo OPI, izpodbijano s pritožbo pritožnika v upravnem postopku, s katero so bili 1. maja 2004 spremenjeni korekcijski koeficient, gospodinjski dodatek in pav�alni znesek dodatka za �olanje v zvezi z njegovo pokojnino, ter, drugič, njegove pokojninske odrezke, ker se zanje od maja 2004 uporablja navedena odločba.
The Court of First Instance considered, first, that the head of claim relating to the household allowance and the education allowance was inadmissible, since it did not appear in the appellant’s complaint, and the same was true of the heads of claim seeking annulment of the decision constituted by the pension statements for May and June 2004 in the absence of a legal interest in bringing proceedings.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je najprej ugotovilo nedopustnost tožbenega predloga v zvezi z gospodinjskim dodatkom in dodatkom za �olanje, zato ker ni naveden v pritožbi pritožnika v upravnem postopku, ter tožbenih predlogov v zvezi z razglasitvijo ničnosti odločbe, navedene v pokojninskih odrezkih za maj in junij 2004, zaradi pomanjkanja pravnega interesa.
On the other hand, the Court of First Instance accepted that the appellant had such an interest in challenging the pension statement for July 2004, since the correction coefficient applicable to the remuneration of officials in active employment in the United Kingdom had been set, in accordance with the ‘capital method’, at 142.7%, with retroactive effect for that month, whereas the amount of the appellant’s pension remained fixed, by virtue of the guarantee of the nominal amount, at a level obtained by application of the correction coefficient of 139.6% at the same date.
Nasprotno pa je Sodi�če prve stopnje priznalo ta interes za izpodbijanje pokojninskega odrezka za julij 2004, saj je bil korekcijski koeficient, ki se uporablja za osebne prejemke uradnikov, ki so v službi v Združenem kraljestvu, izračunan po metodi „glavnega mesta“, 142,7 %, z retroaktivnim učinkom za ta mesec, saj je znesek pokojnine pritožnika ostal nespremenjen, v skladu z zagotovljenim nominalnim zneskom, na enaki ravni kot znesek, izračunan z uporabo korekcijskega koeficienta 139,6 %, za navedeni mesec.
The Court of First Instance then held to be unfounded the seven limbs of the objection of illegality concerning Article 20 of Annex XIII to the new Staff Regulations, constituting the sole plea in law put forward by the appellant, alleging, respectively, infringement of the principles of the protection of legitimate expectations, legal certainty, non-retroactivity and acquired rights, equal treatment, proportionality and good administration, and alleging misuse of powers and an inadequate statement of reasons.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je nato ugotovilo nedopustnost sedmih delov ugovora nezakonitosti člena 20 priloge XIII k novim Kadrovskim predpisom, kar je edini pritožbeni razlog, na katerega se sklicuje pritožnik, in se nana�a na kr�itev načela zaupanja v pravo, pravne varnosti, prepovedi retroaktivnosti in načela pridobljene pravice, na kr�itev načela enakega obravnavanja, sorazmernosti, dobrega upravljanja, na zlorabo pooblastil in na nezadostno obrazložitev.
Four arguments were relied upon in support of the part of that plea alleging breach of the principle of equal treatment, the Court of First Instance’s findings on which are challenged in the present appeal.
V zvezi z delom navedenega pritožbenega razloga, ki se nana�a na kr�itev načela enakega obravnavanja – katerega presoja s strani Sodi�ča prve stopnje se izpodbija v okviru te pritožbe –, so bili v utemeljitev tega razloga navedeni �tirje razlogi.
At paragraphs 99 to 109 of the judgment under appeal, the Court of First Instance rejected the appellant’s first argument that the application of the ‘country method’ to the calculation of the transitional correction coefficients for the pensions of officials who retired before 1 May 2004 infringed the principle of equal treatment, since the correction coefficients calculated in accordance with the new method did not guarantee equality of purchasing power for all pensioners.
Tudi Sodi�če prve stopnje je, v točkah od 99 do 109 izpodbijane sodbe, zavrglo prvo trditev pritožnika, v skladu s katero naj bi bilo z uporabo metode „države“ pri računanju prehodnih korekcijskih koeficientov, s katerimi se ponderirajo pokojnine uradnikov, ki so se upokojili pred 1. majem 2004, kr�eno načelo enakega obravnavanja, ker naj korekcijski koeficienti, izračunani po tej metodi, ne bi zagotavljali vsem upokojencem ohranitve enake kupne moči.
It referred, first of all, to its conclusion in Case T-184/00 Drouvis v Commission [2003] ECR-SC I-A-51 and II-297, paragraph 60, that a single correction coefficient per country could constitute an appropriate indicator to reflect, in a necessarily approximate manner, the cost of living in a Member State and appropriately serve the purpose of ensuring equal treatment between pensioners.
Najprej je opozorilo na odločitev v sodbi z dne 26. februarja 2003 v zadevi Drouvis proti Komisiji (T-184/00, RecFP, str. I-A-51 in II-297, točka 60), na podlagi katere lahko en sam korekcijski koeficient za državo pomeni ustrezen kazalec, ki le približno izraža življenjske stro�ke v državi članici in ki primerno služi cilju zagotovitve enakega obravnavanja upokojencev.
The Court of First Instance also considered that, by replacing the ‘capital method’ with the ‘country method’, the legislature had not exceeded the limits imposed on its discretion in that matter.
Sodi�če je prav tako ugotovilo, da z nadomestitvijo metode „glavnega mesta“ z metodo „države“ zakonodajalec ni prekoračil omejitev, določenih za izvajanje njegove diskrecijske pravice na tem področju.
At paragraph 105 of the judgment under appeal, it pointed out, inter alia, that the legislature is free to adopt provisions that are less advantageous for the officials concerned than the previous ones, on condition that it sets a sufficiently long transitional period.
V točki 105 izpodbijane sodbe je zlasti ugotovilo, da lahko zakonodajalec po prosti presoji sprejme določbe, ki so za uradnike manj ugodne od predhodnih, pod pogojem, da določi dovolj dolgo prehodno obdobje.
Nor can that freedom be obstructed by invoking the principle of equality of purchasing power, particularly since the transitional arrangements guarantee pensioners that the nominal amount of net pension received before the new Staff Regulations came into force was to be maintained.
Tak�ne pravice ni mogoče omejiti s sklicevanjem na načelo enake kupne moči, zlasti ne ob upo�tevanju dejstva, da je s prehodno ureditvijo upokojencem zagotovljeno, da se jim zagotovi nominalni znesek neto pokojnine, prejete pred uveljavitvijo novih Kadrovskih predpisov.
At paragraphs 110 to 115 of the judgment under appeal, the Court of First Instance rejected the appellant’s second argument, alleging discrimination between officials in active employment, to whom the ‘capital method’ is still applied, and retired officials, by pointing out that the two categories of officials are in objectively different situations.
V točkah od 110 do 115 izpodbijane sodbe je Sodi�če prve stopnje zavrnilo drugo trditev pritožnika, ki se nana�a na diskriminacijo med zaposlenimi uradniki, za katere se �e vedno uporablja metoda „glavnega mesta“, in upokojenimi uradniki, pri čemer je poudarilo, da sta ti dve kategoriji uradnikov v objektivno različnih položajih.
The appellant’s third argument, to the effect that there is discrimination if a com -parison is made with pensioners living in Belgium, by virtue of the fact that the pensions paid to the latter were determined on the basis of the cost of living in Brussels as a capital city, was rejected by the Court of First Instance at paragraphs 116 to 130 of the judgment under appeal.
Tretja trditev pritožnika, katere namen je dokazati obstoj diskriminacije v razmerju do upokojencev, ki prebivajo v Belgiji, zaradi dejstva, da se pokojnine teh upokojencev določijo ob upo�tevanju življenjskih stro�kov v Bruslju kot glavnem mestu, je bila zavrnjena v točkah od 116 do 130 izpodbijane sodbe.
The Court of First Instance, first, stated that, in accordance with the provisions of Article 1(3)(a)(ii) of Annex XI to the new Staff Regulations in conjunction with Article 3(5)(b) thereof, the correction coefficients applicable to pensions paid in Member States other than the Kingdom of Belgium are to be determined ‘with reference to Belgium’ and there is nothing in the new pension rules to lead to the conclusion that the legislature intended that pensioners residing in Belgium should have the advantage of a correction coefficient which took account of the cost of living in Brussels as a capital city.
V zvezi s tem je Sodi�če prve stopnje najprej ugotovilo, v skladu z določbo člena 1(3)(a)(ii) v povezavi s členom 3(5)(b) priloge XI k novim Kadrovskim predpisom, da so korekcijski koeficienti, ki se uporabijo za pokojnine, izplačane v državah članicah, ki niso Kraljevina Belgija, določeni „glede na Belgijo“ ter da nič v novi ureditvi pokojnin ne vodi do zaključka, da je zakonodajalec s korekcijskim koeficientom, za katerega se upo�teva življenjske stro�ke v Bruslju kot glavnem mestu, želel podeliti ugodnosti upokojencem, ki prebivajo v Belgiji.
It added, at paragraphs 120 to 123 of the judgment under appeal, that it is true that, when the transition was made from the ‘capital method’ to the ‘country method’, neither the basic amount of ‘Belgian’ pensions nor the 100% correction coefficient applied to that amount was reduced in a manner which took account of the new method.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je dodalo, v točkah od 120 do 123 izpodbijane sodbe, da je sicer res, da pri prehodu z metode „glavnega mesta“ na metodo „države“ niti znesek osnovne „belgijske“ pokojnine niti korekcijski koeficient v vi�ini 100 %, ki se uporabi za ta znesek, nista bila predmet zmanj�anja ob upo�tevanju nove metodologije.
The Commission stated at the hearing that, in practice, the statisticians had reached the conclusion that the method consisting of measuring the difference between prices in Brussels and prices in another capital, such as London, provided a perfectly valid estimate of the difference between prices in Belgium and prices in the United Kingdom for all products but one, namely rents.
Komisija je v zvezi s tem na obravnavi pojasnila, da so statistiki dejansko pri�li do zaključka, da obstoječa metoda za merjenje razlike med cenami v Bruslju in cenami v drugem glavnem mestu, kot je London, daje na voljo popolnoma veljavno oceno razlike med cenami v Belgiji in cenami v Združenem kraljestvu glede vseh proizvodov, razen ene same izjeme, in sicer najemnin.