natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
— the recipient of a grant is under no obligation to work for the institute in question, and instead may devote himself entirely to work relating to his thesis, whereas
– prejemniku �tipendije ni treba opravljati dela za zadevni in�titut, ampak se lahko v celoti posveti delu za svojo disertacijo, medtem ko je
— the holder of a BAT IIa halftime contract is under an obligation to work for the institute which employs him and may use its facilities for the purposes of his thesis only outside his working hours.
– oseba, ki sklene pogodbo BAT IIa/polovični delovni čas, zavezana opravljati delo za in�titut, ki jo zaposli, pri čemer lahko opremo in�tituta za potrebe disertacije uporablja le zunaj delovnega časa.
Moreover, the two types of contract may also be distinguished from the point of view of the contracting parties’ tax obligations and their affiliation to the social security system.
Poleg tega se ti pogodbi razlikujeta tudi z vidika davčnih obveznosti pogodbenih strank in njihove vključenosti v sistem socialne varnosti.
Thus, grant recipients are exempt from income tax and are not affiliated to the social security system.
Tako prejemnikom �tipendije ni treba plačevati dohodnine in niso vključeni v sistem socialne varnosti.
By contrast, researchers holding BAT IIa halftime posts are liable to income tax and must pay social security contributions in respect of their employment.
Nasprotno so raziskovalci, ki sklenejo pogodbo BAT IIa/polovični delovni čas, zavezani plačevati ta davek, odvajati pa morajo tudi prispevke za socialno varnost.
His activities were based on a letter from MPI of 7 February 2000, which was signed by him.
Podlaga za njegovo delo je bil dopis MPI z dne 7. februarja 2000, ki ga je sam podpisal.
By that letter, MPI awarded him a monthly grant for the period from 7 February 2000 to 6 February 2002 to enable him to prepare his doctorate in Germany and abroad on the subject of the ‘development of a bolometer camera for wavelengths below 300 µm’.
MPI mu je s tem dopisom podelil mesečno �tipendijo za obdobje od 7. februarja 2000 do 6. februarja 2002, ki naj bi v Nemčiji in tujini omogočila pripravo doktorata na temo „razvoj bolometrske kamere za valovno dolžino do 300 µm“.
The letter was worded as follows:
V navedenem dopisu je bilo določeno:
‘Acceptance of the grant obliges you to dedicate yourself wholly to the objective of the grant.
„Sprejetje �tipendije vas zavezuje, da se v celoti posvetite namenu, za katerega je bila podeljena.
Other activities require the prior consent of the institute’s management.
Drugo delo lahko opravljate le po predhodnem soglasju vodstva in�tituta.
The grant is paid as a contribution to living costs but not as consideration for your scientific work.
Namen �tipendije je, da si z njo zagotovite preživljanje, in se ne podeljuje kot plačilo za va�e znanstveno delo.
Acceptance of the grant does not oblige you to undertake any work as an employee of the Max-Planck-Gesellschaft.
Sprejetje �tipendije vas ne zavezuje k opravljanju plačanega dela za Max-Planck-Gesellschaft.
Therefore the grant is exempt from income tax under Paragraph 3(44) of the Einkommensteuergesetz [(Law on income tax)] and exempt from tax on wages under Paragraph 6(22) of the Lohnsteuerdurchführungsverord-
Štipendija je zato opro�čena dohodnine na podlagi člena 3, točka 44, zakona o dohodnini (Einkommensteuergesetz) in davka na plače na podlagi člena 6,
2008 — CASE C-94/07 nung [(Implementing regulation on tax on wages)] and consequently also exempt from social security contributions.’
2008 – ZADEVA C-94/07 točka 22, uredbe o izvr�evanju davka na plače (Lohnsteuerdurchführungsverordnung) ter zato tudi prispevkov za socialno varnost.“
By a supplementary contract dated 29 November 2001, Mr Raccanelli’s ‘doctoral student contract’ was extended to 6 August 2002, and, subsequently, to 6 May 2003.
Z dodatkom k „pogodbi �tudenta doktorskega �tudija“ z dne 29. novembra 2001 je bila ta podalj�ana do 6. avgusta 2002, nato pa do 6. maja 2003.
In respect of the period from 7 May 2003 to 31 July 2003, the parties concluded an agreement on 19 May 2003 which was worded as follows:
Za obdobje od 7. maja do 31. julija 2003 sta stranki 19. maja 2003 sklenili sporazum, v katerem je bilo določeno:
The institute will make an appropriate work place available to him and its operatives will supervise him.
In�titut mu omogoči ustrezno delovno mesto in nadzor svojih sodelavcev.
Other facilities are available to him within the limits of the institute’s regulations and the applicable provisions; he undertakes to comply with these provisions.
Drugo opremo lahko uporablja v okviru poslovnika in�tituta in njegovih določb o izvajanju; zaveže se k spo�tovanju teh določb.
His stay as a guest does not establish any employment relationship and no allowance shall be paid.
To gostovanje ne ustvarja nikakr�nega razmerja in ni podlaga za plačilo.
MPG rejects those claims.
MPG zavrača te trditve.
Without ruling on the factual aspect of the contractual relationship between the two parties during the period in question, the referring court proceeds on the basis that the degree of Mr Raccanelli’s personal dependency on MPI is not sufficient for there to have been an employment relationship between them.
Predložitveno sodi�če, ne da bi se izreklo o dejanskem vidiku pogodbenega razmerja med strankama v navedenem obdobju, izhaja iz načela, da stopnja osebne odvisnosti A. Raccanellija od MPI ne zado�ča za ugotovitev, da je med tema strankama obstajalo delovno razmerje.
The referring court queries whether, in view of MPG’s status as a privatelaw association, MPG is bound by the principle of nondiscrimination as if it were a publiclaw body.
Navedeno sodi�če se spra�uje, ali MPG glede na njegovo ustanovitev v obliki zasebnopravnega združenja zavezuje načelo prepovedi diskriminacije, kot če bi �lo za subjekt javnega prava.
In those circumstances, the Arbeitsgericht Bonn decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:
Glede na to je Arbeitsgericht Bonn prekinilo odločanje in Sodi�ču v predhodno odločanje predložilo ta vpra�anja:
What are the consequences in law in the event of discrimination against foreign nationals?’
Kak�ne so pravne posledice v primeru diskriminacije tujcev?“
Admissibility of the reference for a preliminary ruling
Dopustnost predloga za sprejetje predhodne odločbe
MPG submits in its written observations that the reference for a preliminary ruling must be dismissed as inadmissible.
MPG v pisnih stali�čih opozarja, da je treba predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe zavreči kot nedopustnega.
According to MPG, the referring court has not established the facts of the dispute between the parties to the main proceedings, and has failed to give reasons to justify the questions raised.
Meni namreč, da predložitveno sodi�če ni navedlo dejanskega stanja spora med strankama v glavni stvari in ni obrazložilo podlage za zastavljena vpra�anja.
Therefore, it argues, the Court does not have the information necessary in order to enable it to reply usefully to those questions.
Zato naj Sodi�če ne bi imelo potrebnih podatkov za koristen odgovor na ta vpra�anja.
In order to ascertain whether the information supplied by the Arbeitsgericht Bonn satisfies those requirements, the nature and scope of the questions raised have to be taken into consideration (see, to that effect, Confederación Española de Empresarios de Estaciones de Servicio, paragraph 29).
Da bi se prepričali, ali podatki, ki jih je posredovalo Arbeitsgericht Bonn, izpolnjujejo te zahteve, je treba upo�tevati naravo in obseg zastavljenih vpra�anj (glej v tem smislu zgoraj navedeno sodbo Confederación Española de Empresarios de Estaciones de Servicio, točka 29).
In that regard, it must be noted that the first question referred for a preliminary ruling is stated in very general terms, in that it seeks to obtain an interpretation of the Community concept of ‘worker’, as referred to in Article 39 EC and Article 7 of Regulation No 1612/68.
V zvezi s tem je treba ugotoviti, da je prvo vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje zelo splo�no, saj naj bi privedlo do razlage skupnostnega pojma delavec, kot izhaja iz členov 39 ES in 7 Uredbe �t. 1612/68.
The questions raised by the Arbeitsgericht Bonn in the alternative concern the principle of nondiscrimination under Article 12 EC.
Vpra�anji, ki ju je Arbeitsgericht Bonn zastavilo podredno, se nana�ata na načelo prepovedi diskriminacije, ki je urejeno v členu 12 ES.
However, while there may be gaps in the reference for a preliminary ruling, both in relation to the presentation of the facts of the main proceedings and the grounds for the reference, the Court none the less has sufficient information to enable it to determine the scope of the questions raised and to interpret the Community provisions at issue so as to reply usefully to those questions.
Vendar ima Sodi�če ne glede na to, da predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe ni popoln niti glede predstavitve dejanskega stanja niti glede obrazložitve tega predloga, na voljo dovolj dejavnikov, na podlagi katerih lahko opredeli obseg zastavljenih vpra�anj in poda razlago zadevnih določb Skupnosti ter s tem koristen odgovor na ta vpra�anja.
Moreover, both the Commission of the European Communities and, to a certain extent, MPG took the view that it was possible to submit written observations to the Court of Justice on the basis of the information provided by the national court.
Poleg tega sta Komisija Evropskih skupnosti in v določenem obsegu tudi MPG menila, da je na podlagi podatkov, ki jih je predložilo predložitveno sodi�če, Sodi�ču mogoče predložiti stali�ča.
In those circumstances, the reference for a preliminary ruling must be held to be admissible.
Glede na to je treba ugotoviti, da je predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe dopusten.
Question 1
Prvo vpra�anje
By its first question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether a researcher in a similar situation to that of the applicant in the main proceedings, that is a researcher preparing a doctoral thesis on the basis of a grant contract concluded with MPG, must be regarded as a worker within the meaning of Article 39 EC if he is called upon to perform as much work as a researcher preparing a doctoral thesis on the basis of a BAT/2 employment contract with MPG.
Predložitveno sodi�če s prvim vpra�anjem v bistvu spra�uje, ali je treba raziskovalca v takem položaju, v kakr�nem je tožeča stranka v postopku v glavni stvari, ki pripravlja doktorsko disertacijo na podlagi pogodbe o �tipendiranju, ki jo je sklenila z MPG, obravnavati kot delavca v smislu člena 39 ES, če je dolžan opraviti toliko dela kot raziskovalec, ki pripravlja doktorsko diseratcijo na podlagi pogodbe o zaposlitvi BAT/2, ki jo je sklenil s tem združenjem.
In that regard, it must be noted that the Court has consistently held that the concept of ‘worker’ within the meaning of Article 39 EC has a specific Community meaning and must not be interpreted narrowly.
V zvezi s tem je treba opozoriti, da je v skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso Sodi�ča pojem „delavec“ v smislu člena 39 ES pojem Skupnosti in se ne sme razlagati ozko.
The applicant in the main proceedings can therefore be acknowledged to have the status of worker only if the referring court, which alone is competent to assess the facts of the case in the main proceedings, were to establish the existence in that
Tožeči stranki v postopku v glavni stvari se lahko zato status delavca prizna le, če bi predložitveno sodi�če, ki je edino pristojno presojati dejansko stanje v postopku
RACCANELLI case of the constituent elements of any paid employment relationship, namely subordination and the payment of remuneration.
RACCANELLI v glavni stvari, v tej zadevi ugotovilo, da sta izpolnjena temeljna dejavnika vsakega delovnega razmerja, in sicer podrejeni odnos in plačilo.
Consequently, since the referring court is required to verify the existence of the criteria set out in paragraph 33 of the present judgment, it follows that its examination should cover, inter alia, the substance of the doctoral student contract and of the supplementary contract, and the arrangements for giving effect to those documents.
Ker mora predložitveno sodi�če preizkusiti obstoj meril iz točke 33, bi moral ta preizkus obsegati zlasti vsebino pogodbe �tudenta doktorskega �tudija in dodatka k tej pogodbi ter način izvajanja teh aktov.
While it must be concluded from the foregoing that Mr Raccanelli’s status as a worker, within the meaning of Article 39 EC, must be determined objectively in accordance with the criteria set out in paragraph 33 of the present judgment, it is, by contrast, not possible to draw any conclusion with regard to that status from a comparison of the work of the applicant in the main proceedings and the work carried out or to be carried out by a researcher preparing a doctoral thesis on the basis of a BAT/2 employment contract concluded with MPG.
Iz zgoraj navedenega je torej mogoče sklepati, da je treba status delavca A. Raccanellija v smislu člena 39 ES ugotavljati objektivno na podlagi meril iz točke 33 te sodbe, nasprotno pa o tem statusu ni mogoče sklepati na podlagi primerjave dela, ki ga je opravljala tožeča stranka v postopku v glavni stvari, z delom, ki ga opravlja oziroma ga je dolžan opravljati raziskovalec, ki pripravlja doktorsko disertacijo na podlagi pogodbe o zaposlitvi BAT/2, ki jo sklene z MPG.
Accordingly, the answer to the first question must be that a researcher in a similar situation to that of the applicant in the main proceedings, that is, a researcher preparing a doctoral thesis on the basis of a grant contract concluded with MPG, must be regarded as a worker within the meaning of Article 39 EC only if his activities are performed for a certain period of time under the direction of an institute forming part of that association and if, in return for those activities, he receives remuneration.
Zato je treba na prvo vpra�anje odgovoriti, da je treba raziskovalca v takem položaju, v kakr�nem je tožeča stranka v postopku v glavni stvari, ki pripravlja doktorsko disertacijo na podlagi pogodbe o �tipendiranju, ki jo je sklenila z MPG, obravnavati kot delavca v smislu člena 39 ES, le če določen čas opravlja delo pod vodstvom in�tituta, ki je del tega združenja, in v zameno za to prejema plačilo.
It is for the referring court to undertake the necessary verification of the facts in order to establish whether such is the case in the dispute before it.
Predložitveno sodi�če mora opraviti potreben preizkus dejanskega stanja, da bo lahko presodilo, ali gre v zadevi, o kateri odloča, za tak primer.
By its second question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether there is no discrimination only if the applicant in the main proceedings was at least granted the right to choose between an employment contract and a grant before beginning his period of doctoral study with MPG.
Nacionalno sodi�če z drugim vpra�anjem v bistvu spra�uje, ali je mogoče ugotoviti, da ni bilo diskriminacije, le če je imela tožeča stranka v postopku v glavni stvari pred začetkom opravljanja doktorskega �tudija pri MPG možnost izbire med pogodbo o zaposlitvi in �tipendijo.
As a preliminary point, it must be noted that the question whether Mr Raccanelli would have had the right, by virtue of MPG’s practice, to choose between a grant contract and a BAT/2 employment contract if he did not have the status of worker within the meaning of Article 39 EC and Article 7 of Regulation No 1612/68 is a question of national law which it is not for the Court to address.
Raccanelli imeti možnost izbire med pogodbo o �tipendiranju in pogodbo o zaposlitvi BAT/2 na podlagi prakse MPG, čeprav ni imel statusa delavca v smislu členov 39 ES in 7 Uredbe �t. 1612/68, vpra�anje nacionalnega prava, o katerem Sodi�če ni pristojno odločati.
However, it follows from Part II of the grounds for the order for reference that, by its second question, the Arbeitsgericht Bonn is asking, in essence, whether MPG is bound — notwithstanding its establishment as a privatelaw association — by the principle of nondiscrimination as if it had the status of a publiclaw body, and whether MPG is therefore obliged to accord Mr Raccanelli the right to choose between a grant contract and an employment contract.
Vendar iz drugega dela obrazložitve predložitvene odločbe izhaja, da Arbeitsgericht Bonn z drugim vpra�anjem v bistvu spra�uje, ali MPG kljub ustanovitvi v obliki zasebnopravnega združenja zavezuje načelo prepovedi diskriminacije, kot če bi bilo subjekt javnega prava, in če je zato to združenje A.
In that regard, it must be borne in mind that, under Article 39 EC, freedom of movement for workers within the European Community entails the abolition of any discrimination based on nationality between workers of the Member States as regards employment, remuneration and other conditions of work and employment (Case C-281/98 Angonese [2000] ECR I-4139, paragraph 29).
Raccanelliju dolžno omogočiti, da izbira med pogodbo o �tipendiranju in pogodbo o zaposlitvi.
Moreover, it must be noted that the principle of nondiscrimination laid down by Article 39 EC is worded in general terms and is not addressed specifically to the Member States or to bodies governed by public law.
V zvezi s tem je treba opozoriti, da na podlagi člena 39 ES prosto gibanje delavcev v Evropski skupnosti vključuje odpravo vsakr�ne diskriminacije na podlagi državljan -stva delavcev držav članic v zvezi z zaposlitvijo, plačilom in drugimi delovnimi pogoji (sodba z dne 6. junija 2000 v zadevi Angonese, C-281/98, Recueil, str. I-4139, točka 29).
Thus, the Court has held that the prohibition of discrimination based on nationality applies not only to the actions of public authorities but also to rules of any other nature aimed at regulating in a collective manner gainful employment and the provision of services (see Case 36/74 Walrave and Koch [1974] ECR 1405, paragraph 17, and Angonese, paragraph 31).
Tako je Sodi�če presodilo, da se prepoved diskriminacije ne podlagi državljanstva ne nana�a le na dejanja javnih organov, temveč obsega tudi druge predpise, s katerimi se kolektivno ureja plačano delo oziroma opravljanje storitev (glej sodbi z dne 12. decembra 1974 v zadevi Walrave in Koch, 36/74, Recueil, str. 1405, točka 17, in zgoraj navedeno Angonese, točka 31).
The Court has held that the abolition, as between Member States, of obstacles to freedom of movement for persons would be compromised if the abolition of State barriers could be neutralised by obstacles resulting from the exercise of their legal autonomy by associations or organisations not governed by public law (see Walrave and Koch, paragraph 18, and Case C-415/93 Bosman [1995] ECR I-4921, paragraph 83).
Sodi�če je namreč menilo, da bi bila odprava ovir za prosto gibanje oseb med državami članicami ogrožena, če bi odpravo ovir, ki izvirajo od države, izničile ovire, ki bi jih z izvr�evanjem pravne avtonomije ustvarila združenja in organizacije, ki niso osebe javnega prava (glej zgoraj navedeno sodbo Walrave in Koch, točka 18, in sodbo z dne 15. decembra 1995 v zadevi Bosman, C-415/93, Recueil, str. I-4921, točka 83).
The Court has thus held, with regard to Article 39 EC, which lays down a fundamental freedom and which constitutes a specific application of the general prohibition of discrimination contained in Article 12 EC, that the prohibition of discrimination applies equally to all agreements intended to regulate paid labour collectively, as well as to contracts between individuals (see Case 43/75 Defrenne [1976] ECR 455, paragraph 39, and Angonese, paragraphs 34 and 35).
Sodi�če je zato v zvezi s členom 39 ES, ki ureja temeljno svobo�čino in je poseben izraz splo�ne prepovedi diskriminacije iz člena 12 ES, odločilo, da se prepoved diskriminacije nana�a tudi na vse dogovore, s katerimi se kolektivno ureja plačano delo, ter na pogodbe med posamezniki (glej sodbi z dne 8. aprila 1976 v zadevi Defrenne, 43/75, Recueil, str. 455, točka 39, in zgoraj navedeno Angonese, točki 34 in 35).
It must be held, therefore, that the prohibition of discrimination based on nationality laid down by Article 39 EC applies equally to privatelaw associations such as MPG.
Zato je treba ugotoviti, da se prepoved diskriminacije na podlagi državljanstva iz člena 39 ES nana�a tudi na zasebnopravna združenja, kakr�no je MPG.
As to the question whether MPG was, in consequence, obliged to accord Mr Raccanelli the right to choose between a grant contract and an employment contract, the answer must be that the Court has consistently held that discrimination consists in the application of different rules to comparable situations or in the application of the same rule to different situations (see, to that effect, Case C-311/97 Royal Bank of Scotland [1999] ECR I-2651, paragraph 26).
V zvezi z vpra�anjem, ali je bil MPG A. Raccanelliju dolžen dati možnost izbire med pogodbo o �tipendiranju in pogodbo o zaposlitvi, pa je treba odgovoriti, da iz ustaljene sodne prakse Sodi�ča izhaja, da se diskriminacija izkazuje z uporabo različnih pravil za primerljive položaje oziroma istega pravila za različne položaje (glej v tem smislu sodbo z dne 29. aprila 1999 v zadevi Royal Bank of Scotland, C-311/97, točka 26, Recueil, str.
It is for the referring court to establish whether, by reason of the application of different rules to comparable situations in circumstances such as those of the case in the main proceedings, the potential withholding of that choice resulted in inequality in the treatment of domestic and foreign doctoral students.
I-2651, točka 26). Predložitveno sodi�če mora ugotoviti, ali je morebitna zavrnitev navedene možnosti izbire zaradi uporabe različnih pravil za primerljive položaje v primeru, kot se obravnava v postopku v glavni stvari, pomenila neenako obravnavanje nacionalnih in tujih �tudentov doktorskega �tudija.
In those circumstances, the answer to the second question must be that a privatelaw association, such as MPG, must observe the principle of nondiscrimination in
Glede na to je treba na drugo vpra�anje odgovoriti, da mora zasebnopravno združenje, kot je MPG, v razmerju do delavcev v smislu člena 39 ES spo�tovati načelo
2008 — CASE C-94/07 relation to workers within the meaning of Article 39 EC.
2008 – ZADEVA C-94/07 prepovedi diskriminacije.
It is for the referring court to establish whether, in circumstances such as those of the case in the main proceedings, there has been inequality in the treatment of domestic and foreign doctoral students.
Predložitveno sodi�če mora ugotoviti, ali so bili v okoli�činah, kakr�ne so v obravnavanem postopku v glavni stvari, neenako obravnavani nacionalni in tuji �tudenti doktorskega �tudija.
By its third question, the referring court asks what the consequences in law are in the event that discrimination against a foreign doctoral student arises from the fact that the latter did not have the opportunity to conclude an employment contract with MPG.
Predložitveno sodi�če s tretjim vpra�anjem spra�uje, kak�ne so posledice diskriminacije tujega �tudenta doktorskega �tudija, ki izhajajo iz dejstva, da ta ni imel možnosti skleniti pogodbe o zaposlitvi z MPG.
Consequently, as the Commission indicates in its written observations, it is for the referring court to assess, in the light of the national legislation applicable in relation to non-contractual liability, the nature of the compensation which the applicant in the main proceedings would be entitled to claim.
Zato mora, kot je navedla Komisija v pisnih stali�čih, predložitveno sodi�če glede na veljavno nacionalno zakonodajo na področju nepogodbene odgovornosti presoditi, v kak�ni obliki lahko tožeča stranka v postopku v glavni stvari zahteva povračilo �kode.
In those circumstances, the answer to the third question must be that, in the event that the applicant in the main proceedings is justified in relying on damage caused
Zato je treba na tretje vpra�anje odgovoriti, da mora, če se lahko tožeča stranka v postopku v glavni stvari utemeljeno sklicuje, da je zaradi diskriminacije, katere žrtev