natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The preliminary issue raised before that tribunal is whether the claimant in the main proceedings can base her application on national law, in particular those provisions
Vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje, ki se je zastavilo pred navedenim sodi�čem, se nana�a na to, ali lahko tožeča stranka iz postopka v glavni stvari na podlagi določb
2008 — CASE C-303/06 designed to transpose Directive 2000/78, in order to plead discrimination against her former employer on the ground that she was subjected to less favourable treatment connected with her son’s disability.
2008 – ZADEVA C-303/06 nacionalnega prava, zlasti tistih, s katerimi je bila prenesena Direktiva 2000/78, utemelji diskriminacijo, ki naj bi jo izvajal njen nekdanji delodajalec, s tem da jo je obravnaval manj ugodno zaradi invalidnosti njenega sina.
It is apparent from the order for reference that, should the Court’s interpretation of Directive 2000/78 contradict that put forward by Ms Coleman, her application to the referring tribunal could not succeed under national law.
Iz besedila predložitvene odločbe izhaja, da se na podlagi nacionalnega prava ne bi moglo ugoditi zahtevi, ki jo je S. Coleman vložila pri predložitvenem sodi�ču, če bi Sodi�če razlagalo Direktivo 2000/78 drugače, kot predlaga ona.
It is also apparent from the order for reference that, under United Kingdom law, where there is a preliminary hearing on a point of law, the court or tribunal hearing the case assumes that the facts are as related by the claimant.
Iz predložitvene odločbe prav tako izhaja, da v skladu s pravom Združenega kraljestva sodi�če, ki mu je bila zadeva predložena, med predhodno obravnavo o pravnem vpra�anju domneva, da so dejstva tak�na, kot jih navaja tožeča stranka.
In the main proceedings, the facts of the dispute are assumed to be as follows:
V postopku v glavni stvari se domnevajo naslednja dejstva spora:
— her former employer also refused to allow her the same flexibility as regards her working hours and the same working conditions as those of her colleagues who are parents of non-disabled children;
– tudi ni bil tako prilagodljiv glede njenega delovnega časa in delovnih razmer, kot je bil v primeru njenih sodelavcev, ki so star�i neinvalidnih otrok;
— the formal grievance which she lodged against her ill treatment was not dealt with properly and she felt constrained to withdraw it;
– uradna pritožba, ki jo je vložila zaradi slabega ravnanja, ni bila ustrezno upo�tevana in S. Coleman se je čutila prisiljeno, da jo umakne;
No such comments were made when other employees had to ask for time off or a degree of flexibility in order to look after non-disabled children; and
Tak�nih komentarjev ni bilo, ko so drugi zaposleni morali zaprositi za odmor ali določeno prilagodljivost, da bi lahko poskrbeli za svoje neinvalidne otroke, in
— having occasionally arrived late at the office because of problems related to her son’s condition, she was told that she would be dismissed if she came to work late again.
– ker je včasih zamudila na delo zaradi težav, povezanih s stanjem svojega otroka, so ji rekli, da bo odpu�čena, če bo ponovno zamudila.
No such threat was made in the case of other employees with non-disabled children who were late for similar reasons.
S tem se ni zagrozilo drugim zaposlenim, ki imajo neinvalidne otroke in ki so zamudili iz istih razlogov.
Since the Employment Tribunal, London South, considered that the case before it raised questions of interpretation of Community law, it decided to stay the proceedings and refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:
Ker je Employment Tribunal, London South, menilo, da se spor, o katerem odloča, nana�a na razlago prava Skupnosti, je prekinilo odločanje in Sodi�ču v predhodno odločanje predložilo ta vpra�anja:
While accepting that the questions put by the referring tribunal are based on an actual dispute, the Netherlands Government called into question the admissibility of the reference for a preliminary ruling on the basis that, given that these are pre -liminary questions raised at a preliminary hearing, all the facts at issue have not yet been established.
Kljub upo�tevanju, da temeljijo vpra�anja, ki jih je predložilo predložitveno sodi�če, na resničnem sporu, je nizozemska vlada izpodbijala dopustnost predloga za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, ker �e niso ugotovljene vse okoli�čine zadeve, saj so bila vpra�anja zastavljena med predhodno obravnavo.
It points out that, for the purposes of such a preliminary hearing, the national court or tribunal presumes that the facts are as related by the claimant.
Poudarja, da med tako predhodno obravnavo nacionalno sodi�če domneva, da so dejstva tak�na, kot jih zatrjuje tožeča stranka.
It must be borne in mind that Article 234 EC establishes the framework for a relationship of close cooperation between the national courts or tribunals and the Court of Justice based on the assignment to each of different functions.
V zvezi s tem je treba spomniti, da uvaja člen 234 ES tesno sodelovanje med nacionalnimi sodi�či in Sodi�čem, ki temelji na medsebojni razdelitvi funkcij.
In the case in the main proceedings, the referring tribunal found that, if the Court of Justice should decide not to interpret Directive 2000/78 in accordance with Ms Coleman’s submissions, her case would fail in the material respects.
Glede postopka v glavni stvari je treba navesti, da je predložitveno sodi�če ugotovilo, da se glede temelja zadeve ne bo moglo ugoditi S. Coleman, če bi Sodi�če razlagalo Direktivo 2000/78 drugače, kot predlaga ona.
The referring tribunal therefore decided, as permitted under United Kingdom legislation, to consider whether that directive must be interpreted as being applicable to the dismissal of an employee in Ms Coleman’s situation, before establishing whether, in fact, Ms Coleman did suffer less favourable treatment or harassment.
Nacionalno sodi�če je torej odločilo, kot je dovoljeno v zakonodaji Združenega kraljestva, da preuči vpra�anje, ali je treba to direktivo razlagati tako, da se uporabi v primeru odpovedi delovnega razmerja zaposlenemu, ki je v tak�nem položaju kot S. Coleman, preden ugotovi, ali je bila S.
It is for that reason that the questions referred for a preliminary ruling were based on the presumption that the facts of the dispute in the main proceedings are as summarised in paragraph 26 of this judgment.
Coleman dejansko manj ugodno obravnavana ali nadlegovana. Zato so bila vpra�anja za predhodno odločanje predložena na podlagi domneve, da so dejstva spora o glavni stvari tak�na, kot so povzeta v točki 26 te sodbe.
Where, as here, the Court receives a request for interpretation of Community law which is not manifestly unrelated to the reality or the subjectmatter of the main proceedings and it has the necessary information in order to give appropriate answers to the questions put to it in relation to the applicability of Directive 2000/78 to those proceedings, it must reply to that request and is not required to consider the facts as presumed by the referring court or tribunal, a presumption which it is for the referring court or tribunal to verify subsequently if that should prove to be necessary (see, to that effect, Case C-127/92 Enderby [1993] ECR I-5535, paragraph 12).
Ko je Sodi�ču tako predložena zahteva za razlago prava Skupnosti, ki ni očitno brez povezave z resničnim dejanskim stanjem ali predmetom spora o glavni stvari, ter ima Sodi�če podatke, ki so potrebni, da ustrezno odgovori na vpra�anja, postavljena v zvezi z uporabo Direktive 2000/78 v tem sporu, mora na njih odgovoriti, ne da bi se spra�evalo o domnevi glede dejstev, na kateri temelji predložitveno sodi�če, ki mora pozneje to domnevo preveriti, če se to izkaže za potrebno (glej v tem smislu sodbo z dne 27. oktobra 1993 v zadevi Enderby, C-127/92, Recueil, str. I-5535, točka 12).
In those circumstances, the request for a preliminary ruling must be held to be admissible.
V teh okoli�činah je treba predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe �teti za dopustnega.
The first part of Question 1, and Questions 2 and 3
Prvi del prvega vprašanja ter drugo in tretje vprašanje
By these questions, which should be examined together, the referring tribunal asks, in essence, whether Directive 2000/78, and, in particular, Articles 1 and 2(1) and (2)(a), must be interpreted as prohibiting direct discrimination on grounds of disability only in respect of an employee who is himself disabled, or whether the principle of equal treatment and the prohibition of direct discrimination apply equally to an employee who is not himself disabled but who, as in the present case, is treated less favourably by reason of the disability of his child, for whom he is the primary provider of the care required by virtue of the child’s condition.
S temi vpra�anji, ki jih je treba obravnavati skupaj, predložitveno sodi�če v bistvu spra�uje, ali je treba Direktivo 2000/78 in zlasti njena člena 1 ter 2(1) in (2)(a) razlagati tako, da je prepovedana neposredna diskriminacija na podlagi invalidnosti le zoper zaposlenega, ki je invalid, ali pa se načelo enakega obravnavanja in prepoved neposredne diskriminacije nana�ata tudi na zaposlenega, ki ni invalid, vendar je, kot v postopku v glavni stvari, manj ugodno obravnavan zaradi invalidnosti svojega otroka, ki mu v glavnem sam nudi oskrbo, ki jo zahteva njegovo zdravstveno stanje.
Article 1 of Directive 2000/78 identifies its purpose as being to lay down, as regards employment and occupation, a general framework for combating discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation.
V členu 1 Direktive 2000/78 je naveden njen namen, ki je opredeliti splo�ni okvir boja proti diskriminaciji pri zaposlovanju in delu zaradi vere ali prepričanja, invalidnosti, starosti ali spolne usmerjenosti.
Article 2(1) of Directive 2000/78 defines the principle of equal treatment as meaning that there is to be no direct or indirect discrimination whatsoever on any of the grounds referred to in Article 1, including, therefore, disability.
V členu 2(1) iste direktive je opredeljeno načelo enakega obravnavanja, ki pomeni, da ne obstaja nikakr�na neposredna ali posredna diskriminacija zaradi katerega od razlogov iz navedenega člena 1, torej vključno z invalidnostjo.
According to Article 2(2)(a), direct discrimination is to be taken to occur where one person is treated less favourably than another is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation, on the grounds, inter alia, of disability.
V skladu z navedenim členom 2(2)(a) se �teje, da gre za neposredno diskriminacijo, kadar je oseba obravnavana manj ugodno, kakor je, je bila ali bi bila neka druga oseba v primerljivem položaju, zaradi, med drugim, invalidnosti.
Article 3(1)(c) of Directive 2000/78 provides that the directive is to apply, within the limits of the areas of competence conferred on the Community, to all persons, as regards both the public and private sectors, including public bodies, in relation to employment and working conditions, including dismissals and pay.
Na podlagi člena 3(1)(c) Direktive 2000/78 se v mejah pristojnosti, ki so prenesene na Skupnost, ta direktiva uporablja za vse osebe v javnem in zasebnem sektorju, vključno z javnimi organi, v zvezi z zaposlitvijo in delovnimi pogoji, vključno z odpovedjo delovnega razmerja in plačilom.
Consequently, it does not follow from those provisions of Directive 2000/78 that the principle of equal treatment which it is designed to safeguard is limited to people who themselves have a disability within the meaning of the directive.
Iz teh določb Direktive 2000/78 torej ne izhaja, da bi bilo načelo enakega obravnavanja, ki se s to direktivo zagotavlja, omejeno na osebe z invalidnostjo v smislu te direktive.
On the contrary, the purpose of the directive, as regards employment and occupation, is to combat all forms of discrimination on grounds of disability.
Nasprotno, njen namen je boj proti vsem oblikam diskriminacije na podlagi invalidnosti pri zaposlovanju in delu.
The principle of equal treatment enshrined in the directive in that area applies not to a particular category of person but by reference to the grounds mentioned in Article 1.
Načelo enakega obravnavanja, določeno z navedeno direktivo za to področje, se ne uporablja za skupino določenih oseb, ampak na podlagi razlogov iz njenega člena 1.
That interpretation is supported by the wording of Article 13 EC, which constitutes the legal basis of Directive 2000/78, and which confers on the Community the competence to take appropriate action to combat discrimination based, inter alia, on disability.
Ta razlaga je potrjena z besedilom člena 13 ES, ki je pravna podlaga za Direktivo 2000/78 in s katerim je Skupnosti podeljena pristojnost, da sprejme ustrezne ukrepe za boj proti vsaki diskriminaciji na podlagi, med drugim, invalidnosti.
It is true that Directive 2000/78 includes a number of provisions which, as is apparent from their very wording, apply only to disabled people.
Direktiva 2000/78 sicer vsebuje določeno �tevilo določb, ki veljajo, kot izhaja iz njihovega besedila, le za invalidne osebe.
Thus, Article 5 provides that, in order to guarantee compliance with the principle of equal treatment in relation to persons with disabilities, reasonable accommodation is to be provided.
V njenem členu 5 je tako določeno, da se predvidijo razumne prilagoditve za zagotovitev spo�tovanja načela enakega obravnavanja v zvezi z invalidnimi osebami.
This means that employers must take appropriate measures, where needed in a particular case, to enable a person with a disability to have access to, participate in, or advance in employment, or to undergo training, unless such measures would impose a disproportionate burden on the employer.
To pomeni, da sprejme delodajalec ustrezne ukrepe glede na potrebe v konkretni situaciji, da se invalidni osebi omogoči dostop do zaposlitve, sodelovanje ali napredovanje v službi ali usposabljanje, razen če bi taki ukrepi delodajalca nesorazmerno obremenili.
Article 7(2) of Directive 2000/78 also provides that, with regard to disabled persons, the principle of equal treatment is to be without prejudice either to the right of Member States to maintain or adopt provisions on the protection of health and safety at work or to measures aimed at creating or maintaining provisions or facilities for safeguarding or promoting the integration of such persons into the working environment.
V členu 7(2) navedene direktive je prav tako predvideno, da v zvezi z invalidnimi osebami načelo enakega obravnavanja ne vpliva na pravico držav članic, da ohranijo ali sprejmejo predpise o varovanju zdravja in zagotavljanju varstva pri delu ali ukrepe, katerih cilj je ustvariti ali ohraniti določbe ali možnosti za varovanje ali spodbujanje njihovega vključevanja v delovno okolje.
The United Kingdom, Greek, Italian and Netherlands Governments contend, in the light of the provisions referred to in the two preceding paragraphs and also of recitals 16, 17 and 27 in the preamble to Directive 2000/78, that the prohibition of direct discrimination laid down by the directive cannot be interpreted as covering a situation such as that of the claimant in the main proceedings, since the claimant herself is not disabled.
Vlada Združenega kraljestva ter gr�ka, italijanska in nizozemska vlada poudarjajo, da se ob upo�tevanju določb, navedenih v dveh prej�njih točkah, ter uvodnih izjav 16, 17 in 27 Direktive 2000/78 prepoved neposredne diskriminacije, ki je s to direktivo določena, ne more razlagati tako, da se nana�a na položaj, kot je ta, v katerem je tožeča stranka iz postopka v glavni stvari, ker slednja ni invalidna oseba.
Only persons who, in a comparable situation to that of others, are treated less favourably or are placed in a disadvantageous situation because of characteristics which are particular to them can rely on that directive.
Na določbe te direktive naj bi se lahko sklicevale le osebe, ki so v položaju, ki je primerljiv s položajem drugih oseb, obravnavane manj ugodno ali so zaradi svojih lastnosti postavljene v neugoden položaj.
Therefore, the fact that Directive 2000/78 includes provisions designed to accommodate specifically the needs of disabled people does not lead to the conclusion that the principle of equal treatment enshrined in that directive must be interpreted strictly, that is, as prohibiting only direct discrimination on grounds of disability and relating exclusively to disabled people.
Na podlagi dejstva, da so v Direktivi 2000/78 določbe, katerih izrecen namen je upo�tevati potrebe invalidnih oseb, se torej ne more sklepati, da je treba načelo enakega obravnavanja, ki je določeno s to direktivo, razlagati ozko, in sicer kot da je prepovedana le neposredna diskriminacija na podlagi invalidnosti in kot da se nana�a le na invalidne osebe.
Furthermore, recital 6 in the preamble to the directive, concerning the Community Charter of the Fundamental Social Rights of Workers, refers both to the general combating of every form of discrimination and to the need to take appropriate action for the social and economic integration of disabled people.
Poleg tega sta v uvodni izjavi 6 te direktive, ki se nana�a na Listino Skupnosti o temeljnih socialnih pravicah delavcev, poudarjena splo�ni boj proti vsem oblikam diskriminacije in potreba po sprejemanju ukrepov za socialno in ekonomsko vključenost invalidnih oseb.
The United Kingdom, Italian and Netherlands Governments also contend that it follows from the judgment in Case C-13/05 Chacón Navas [2006] ECR I-6467 that the scope ratione personae of Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted strictly.
Vlada Združenega kraljestva ter italijanska in nizozemska vlada prav tako poudarjajo, da ozka razlaga obsega uporabe ratione personae Direktive 2000/78 izhaja iz sodbe z dne 11. julija 2006 v zadevi Chacón Navas (C-13/05, ZOdl., str. I-6467).
The Court defined the concept of ‘disability’ in its judgment in Chacón Navas and, in paragraphs 51 and 52 of that judgment, it found that the prohibition, as regards dismissal, of discrimination on grounds of disability contained in Articles 2(1) and 3(1)(c) of Directive 2000/78 precludes dismissal on grounds of disability which, in the light of the obligation to provide reasonable accommodation for people with disabilities, is not justified by the fact that the person concerned is not competent, capable and available to perform the essential functions of his post.
V zgoraj navedeni sodbi Chacón Navas je Sodi�če opredelilo pojem invalidnosti ter v točkah 51 in 52 navedene sodbe menilo, da na področju odpovedi delovnega razmerja prepoved diskriminacije na podlagi invalidnosti, ki je določena v členih 2(1) in 3(1)(c) Direktive 2000/78, nasprotuje odpovedi delovnega razmerja zaradi invalidnosti, ki glede na obveznost zagotoviti razumne prilagoditve za invalidne osebe ni upravičena z dejstvom, da zadevna oseba ni usposobljena, zmožna ali na razpolago za izpolnjevanje bistvenih nalog svojega delovnega mesta.
However, it does not follow from this interpretation that the principle of equal treatment defined in Article 2(1) of that directive and the prohibition of direct discrimination laid down by Article 2(2)(a) cannot apply to a situation such as that in the present case, where the less favourable treatment which an employee claims to have suffered is on grounds of the disability of his child, for whom he is the primary provider of the care required by virtue of the child’s condition.
Vendar iz tak�ne razlage ne izhaja, da se načelo enakega obravnavanja, ki je opredeljeno v členu 2(1) te direktive, in prepoved neposredne diskriminacije iz odstavka 2(a) istega člena ne moreta uporabiti v primeru, kot je obravnavan v postopku v glavni stvari, ko je manj ugodno obravnavanje, ki ga navaja zaposleni, utemeljeno na invalidnosti njegovega otroka, ki mu zaposleni nudi bistveni del oskrbe, ki jo ta potrebuje zaradi svojega zdravstvenega stanja.
Although the Court explained in paragraph 56 of the judgment in Chacón Navas that, in view of the wording of Article 13 EC, the scope of Directive 2000/78 cannot be extended beyond the discrimination based on the grounds listed exhaustively in Article 1 of the directive, with the result that a person who has been dismissed by his employer solely on account of sickness cannot fall within the scope of the general framework established by Directive 2000/78, it nevertheless did not hold that the principle of equal treatment and the scope ratione personae of that directive must be interpreted strictly with regard to those grounds.
Čeprav je sicer v točki 56 zgoraj navedene sodbe Chacón Navas Sodi�če pojasnilo, da se področja uporabe Direktive 2000/78 ob upo�tevanju besedila člena 13 ES ne more raz�iriti onkraj diskriminacije na podlagi razlogov, ki so taksativno na�teti v členu 1 te direktive, tako da oseba, ki ji je njen delodajalec odpovedal delovno razmerje izključno zaradi bolezni, ne spada v splo�ni okvir, določen z Direktivo 2000/78, vendarle ni presodilo, da je treba načelo enakega obravnavanja in obseg uporabe ratione personae te direktive v zvezi s temi razlogi razlagati ozko.
So far as the objectives of Directive 2000/78 are concerned, as is apparent from paragraphs 34 and 38 of the present judgment, the directive seeks to lay down, as regards employment and occupation, a general framework for combating discrimination on one of the grounds referred to in Article 1 — including, in particular, disability — with a view to putting into effect in the Member States the principle of equal treatment. It follows from recital 37 in the preamble to the directive that it also has the
Glede ciljev, ki se jih zasleduje z Direktivo 2000/78, je treba navesti, da se sku�a z njo, kot izhaja iz točk 34 in 38 te sodbe, opredeliti splo�ni okvir boja pri zaposlovanju in delu proti diskriminaciji na podlagi enega od razlogov iz člena 1 te direktive, med katerimi je tudi invalidnost, da bi se v državah članicah izvajalo načelo enakega
2008 — CASE C-303/06 objective of creating within the Community a level playing field as regards equality in employment and occupation.
Iz uvodne izjave 37 te direktive izhaja, da je njen namen prav tako zagotoviti enake pogoje v vsej Skupnosti v zvezi z enakostjo pri zaposlovanju in delu.
As Ms Coleman, the Lithuanian and Swedish Governments and the Commission maintain, those objectives, and the effectiveness of Directive 2000/78, would be undermined if an employee in the claimant’s situation cannot rely on the prohibition of direct discrimination laid down by Article 2(2)(a) of that directive where it has been established that he has been treated less favourably than another employee is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation, on the grounds of his child’s disability, and this is the case even though that employee is not himself disabled.
Kot uveljavljajo S. Coleman, litovska in �vedska vlada ter Komisija, bi bila uresničitev navedenih ciljev ogrožena in bi Direktiva 2000/78 izgubila polni učinek, če se zaposleni v položaju, kot je ta, v katerem je tožeča stranka iz postopka v glavni stvari, ne bi mogel sklicevati na prepoved neposredne diskriminacije iz člena 2(2)(a) te direktive, ko je bilo dokazano, da je bil obravnavan manj ugodno, kakor je, je bil ali bi bil drug zaposleni v primerljivem položaju, zaradi invalidnosti svojega otroka, tudi če sam ni invalid.
In that regard, it follows from recital 11 in the preamble to the directive that the Community legislature also took the view that discrimination based on religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation may undermine the achievement of the objectives of the Treaty, in particular, as regards employment.
V zvezi s tem izhaja iz uvodne izjave 11 navedene direktive, da je zakonodajalec Skupnosti prav tako menil, da lahko diskriminacija zaradi vere ali prepričanja, invalidnosti, starosti ali spolne usmerjenosti ogrozi uresničevanje ciljev iz Pogodbe, zlasti v zvezi z zaposlitvijo.