natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Given the broad discretion which Member States enjoy in the field of social and employment policy, I am prepared to accept that a policy choice made by a Member State so as to allow private pension schemes to include some kind of an age-gap clause might, in principle, serve a legitimate aim within the meaning of Article 6(1) of Directive 2000/78.
Glede na �iroko diskrecijsko pravico, ki jo imajo države članice na področju socialne in zaposlovalne politike, sem pripravljena sprejeti, da lahko politična odločitev, ki jo sprejme država članica, da bi omogočila vključitev neke vrste klavzule o starostni razliki v zasebni sistem pokojninskega zavarovanja, načeloma ustreza legitimnemu cilju v smislu člena 6(1) Direktive 2000/78.
However, in my view, a scheme that operated — like BSH’s scheme — so as to exclude a widow in Mrs Bartsch’s position 113 from any payment whatsoever under the scheme would be likely to fail the proportionality test contained in Article 6(1), which requires that the means of achieving legitimate aims should be ‘appropriate and necessary’.
Po mojem mnenju pa sistem, ki je deloval tako – kot sistem družbe BSH – da je izključil vdovo v položaju B. Bartsch 113iz kakr�nih koli plačil iz sistema, verjetno ne bi ustrezal načelu sorazmernosti iz člena 6(1), ki zahteva, da so načini uresničevanja legitimnih ciljev „primerni in nujni“.
The referring court states that the age-gap clause is compatible with domestic law because it is based on a ‘fair reason’, namely the employer’s interest in placing an overall limitation of the costs borne by voluntary pension schemes.
Predložitveno sodi�če trdi, da je klavzula o starostni razliki skladna z nacionalnim pravom, ker temelji na „utemeljenem razlogu“, namreč interesu delodajalca pri določanju splo�ne omejitve stro�kov, ki bremenijo sistem prostovoljnega pokojninskega zavarovanja.
112 Further, those considerations are closely connected to the age-gap clause.
112Dalje, ti preudarki so tesno povezani s klavzulo o starostni razliki.
The cost limitation is based on a demographic criterion: the younger the survivors are in relation to the employees to whom an occupational pension was granted, the longer the period in which the employer has, on average, to provide a survivor’s pension.
Omejitev stro�kov temelji na demografskem merilu: mlaj�i kot so preživeli družinski člani glede na zaposlene, ki jim je bila zagotovljena poklicna pokojnina, dalj�e je obdobje, v katerem mora delodajalec v povprečju zagotavljati družinsko pokojnino.
First, it is apparent from the answer which BSH’s representative gave at the hearing that, when the pension scheme was originally set up, the company had had regard purely to the issue of how to distribute the (available) funds.
Prvič, iz odgovora, ki ga je podal zastopnik družbe BSH na obravnavi, jasno izhaja, da je morala družba, ko je prvotno vzpostavila pokojninski sistem, upo�tevati samo vpra�anje, kako razdeliti (razpoložljiva) sredstva.
111 — In Lindorfer, cited in footnote 19, paragraph 56, the Court held that a need for sound financial management of a pension scheme could not be invoked to support the need for higher actuarial values for women.
111 – Sodi�če je sodbi Lindorfer, navedeni v opombi 19, točka 56, razsodilo, da se na potrebo po dobrem finančnem upravljanju pokojninskega sistema ni mogoče sklicevati za utemeljitev potrebe po vi�jih aktuarskih vrednostih za ženske.
See also Advocate General Jacobs’s Opinion, at points 49 to 69, and my Opinion, at points 43 to 50, in that case.
Glej tudi sklepne predloge generalnega pravobranilca Jacobsa v točkah od 49 do 69 in moje sklepne predloge v tej zadevi v točkah od 43 do 50.
Compare also Case C-264/96 ICI [1998] ECR I-4695, Case C-307/97 St Gobain [1999] ECR I-2651, Case C-436/00 X & Y [2002] ECR I-10829, Case C-9/02 Hughes de Lasteyrie du Saillant [2004] ECR I-2409, and Joined Cases C-282/04 and C-283/04 Commission v Netherlands [2006] ECR I-9141 (rejection by the Court of loss of tax revenue as a justification for discrimination contrary to Article 43 EC). 113 — That is to say, a widow more than 15 years younger than her deceased husband who died while being employed by BSH.
I-2651; zadevo X & Y, C-436/00, Recueil, str. I-10829; zadevo Hughes de Lasteyrie du Saillant, C-9/02, ZOdl., str. I-2409; in združeni zadevi Komisija proti Nizozemski, C-282/04 ter C-283/04, ZOdl., str. I-9141 (Sodi�če je zavrnilo utemeljitev diskriminacije v nasprotju s členom 43 ES z izgubo davčnih prihodkov). 113 – Namreč, vdovo, ki je več kot 15 let mlaj�a od svojega umrlega moža, ki je umrl v času zaposlitve pri družbi BSH.
The age-gap clause does not apply if former employees die when already in retirement: see point 13.
Klavzula o starosti razliki se ne uporablja, če nekdanji zaposleni umre v času, ko je že v pokoju – glej točko 13.
112 — See point 107 above.
112 – Glej točko 107 zgoraj.
OPINION OF MS SHARPSTON — CASE C-427/06 capable of justification. In any event, the scheme would fail under proportionality.
SHARPSTON – ZADEVA C-427/06 v nobenem primeru ne bi ustrezal načelu sorazmernosti.
Second, it is not difficult to imagine ways of limiting the costs borne by voluntary pension schemes that are less extreme than total exclusion of survivors.
Drugič, ni si težko zamisliti manj skrajnih načinov za omejitev stro�kov, ki bremenijo prostovoljni sistem pokojninskega zavarovanja, kot je popolna izključitev preživelih družinskih članov.
For example, a reduced benefit could be payable for younger survivors, perhaps determined on a sliding scale; or payments could start only when the survivors reached a certain age.
Na primer, mlaj�im preživelim družinskim članom bi bilo mogoče izplačevati nižje dajatve, ki bi bile morda določene na podlagi progresivnih lestvic, ali da bi se dajatve začele izplačevati le, ko preživeli družinski član doseže določeno starost.
I would therefore conclude, if necessary, that a provision such as the age-gap clause at issue in the main proceedings cannot be justified by the fact that the employer has an interest in limiting the overall costs borne by a voluntary pension scheme.
Zato predlagam, da, če bo potrebno, določbe, kot je zadevna klavzula o starostni razliki v postopku v glavni stvari, ni mogoče upravičiti z dejstvom, da ima delodajalec interes pri določanju splo�ne omejitve stro�kov, ki bremenijo sistem prostovoljnega pokojninskega zavarovanja.
Question 3(c)
Vprašanje 3(c)
Third, there is nothing in the documents before the Court to suggest that a survivor’s pension is payable only if the employee dies at or above a certain age.
Tretjič, iz spisa, predloženega Sodi�ču, nikjer ne izhaja, da se preživelemu družinskemu članu izplača pokojnina le, če zaposleni umre v določeni starosti ali nad njo.
Thus, in a situation where employee and spouse are of the same age and the employee dies at the age of 40, the survivor will receive a pension.
Tako bo v položaju, v katerem sta zaposleni in zakonec enako stara ter zaposleni umre v starosti 40 let, preživeli zakonec prejel pokojnino.
By contrast, a survivor 16 years younger than an employee spouse who dies aged 56 will receive nothing.
Nasprotno, preživeli zakonec, ki je 16 let mlaj�i od zaposlenega zakonca, ki umre v starosti 56 let, ne bo prejel ničesar.
However, there exists no relevant distinction between those two survivors (both aged 40) in terms of their own life expectancy and hence the length of time during which they are likely to draw a survivor’s pension.
Vendar ne obstaja nobena upo�tevna razlika med tema preživelima zakoncema (oba v starosti 40 let) glede njune pričakovane življenjske dobe in zato trajanja obdobja, v katerem bi lahko prejemala vdovsko pokojnino.
The referring court asks whether the possible prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age has unlimited retroactive effect as regards the law relating to occupational pension schemes. If not, in what way is it limited?
Predložitveno sodi�če spra�uje, ali ima morebitna prepoved diskriminacije zaradi starosti neomejen retroaktivni učinek glede zakonodaje v zvezi s sistemi poklicnega pokojninskega zavarovanja ali je omejena za nazaj, in če je tako, kako?
If question 3(b) is analysed from the perspective of the general principle prohibiting discrimination, applied to the specific ground of age, it is difficult to see how such discrimination on grounds of age would be
Pri presoji vpra�anja 3(b) z vidika splo�nega načela prepovedi diskriminacije, ki se uporablja za posebni razlog starosti, je težko razumeti, kako bi bilo mogoče upravičiti tako diskriminacijo zaradi starosti. Sistem
Although the national court enquires, in the course of the order for reference, as to what is the precise point in time from which the principle prohibiting age discrimination applies and how the application of that principle is to be reconciled with the protection of legitimate expectations, it is clear that question 3(c) is really concerned with whether a
Čeprav nacionalno sodi�če v predložitvenem sklepu spra�uje, od katerega natančno določenega trenutka se začne uporabljati načelo prepovedi diskriminacije
BARTSCH temporal limitation might be placed on the judgment in the present case.
BARTSCH in kako je treba uporabo tega načela uskladiti z legitimnimi pričakovanji, je očitno, da se vpra�anje 3(c) dejansko nana�a na vpra�anje, ali se lahko sodba v obravnavani zadevi časovno omeji.
114 I shall therefore answer the question on that basis.
114Zato bom odgovorila na vpra�anje na tej podlagi.
First, there is no material before the Court (whether from the order for reference or from BSH or Germany 117) sufficient to indicate a risk of serious economic repercussions if the Court were not to limit the temporal effect of its judgment.
Prvič, podatki, predloženi Sodi�ču (niti tisti iz predložitvenega sklepa niti tisti, ki jih je predložila družba BSH ali Nemčija 117), ne zado�čajo za ugotovitev tveganja hudih gospodarskih posledic, če Sodi�če ne bi časovno omejilo svoje sodbe.
Secondly, the Court in Mangold did not place any temporal limitation on its judgment.
Drugič, Sodi�če v sodbi Mangold časovno ni omejilo svoje sodbe.
It is that judgment which identified the principle which (on this hypothesis) would here be applied.
In to je tista sodba, v kateri je bilo določeno načelo, ki bi se (v takem primeru) uporabljalo v tej zadevi.
Limitations on the retroactivity of a judgment are imposed only exceptionally and on two conditions.
Sodi�če omeji retroaktivnost sodbe le izjemoma in pod dvema pogojema.
First, there must otherwise be a risk of serious economic repercussions; second, individuals and national authorities must have been led to adopt practices which do not comply with Community legislation by reason of objective, significant uncertainty regarding the implications of Community provisions.
Prvič, obstajati mora sicer tveganje hudih gospodarskih posledic; drugič, posamezniki in nacionalni organi so bili vodeni k ravnanju, ki zaradi objektivne in precej�nje negotovosti glede obsega določb Skupnosti ni bilo v skladu s Skupnostno ureditvijo.
115 Those conditions are cumulative.
115Oba pogoja morata biti izpolnjena hkrati.
Any restriction of the retroactive effect of a judgment must, moreover, be laid down by the Court in the first judgment which gives the ruling on the interpretation requested. 116
Poleg tega Sodi�če dovoli kakr�no koli omejitev retroaktivnega učinka sodbe le z isto sodbo, s katero odloči o zahtevani razlagi. 116
Even if one took the view that this is the first occasion on which the Court has had to consider the application of that principle to a privately-funded occupational pension scheme, the first of the two (cumulative) conditions would still not be satisfied.
Četudi bi se postavili na stali�če, da gre za prvi primer, v katerem je moralo Sodi�če presojati uporabo tega načela za sisteme poklicnega pokojninskega zavarovanja, ki se financirajo zasebno, �e vedno ne bi bila izpolnjena prva dva (kumulativna) pogoja.
I do not consider that the retroactive effect of the judgment in the present case should be limited.
Po mojem mnenju v obravnavani zadevi ni treba omejiti retroaktivnega učinka sodbe.
No temporal limitation should therefore be placed upon the judgment in the present case.
Sodbe v obravnavani zadevi zato ni treba časovno omejiti.
114 — Germany specifically asked for such a limitation.
114 – Nemčija je izrecno zahtevala tako omejitev.
115 — See Richards, cited in footnote 94, paragraph 42, and Case C-313/05 Brzeziński [2007] ECR I-513, paragraph 57.
115 – Glej sodbo Richards, navedeno v opombi 94, točka 42, in zadevo Brzeziński, C-313/05, ZOdl., str. I-513, točka 57.
117 — Germany asserts that a large number of contracts might be affected by such a ruling, but admits that it has no statistical evidence to adduce in support of that assertion.
116 – Sodba Barber, navedena v opombi 109, točka 41; sodba Vroege, navedena v opombi 110, točka 31; zadeva Meilicke, C-292/04, ZOdl., str. I-1835, točki 36 in 37.
116 — Barber, cited in footnote 109, paragraph 41; Vroege cited in footnote 110, paragraph 31; Case C-292/04 Meilicke [2007] ECR I-1835, paragraphs 36 to 37.
117 – Nemčija trdi, da bi taka sodba lahko vplivala na veliko �tevilo pogodb, vendar priznava, da nima nobenih statističnih podatkov, ki bi jih lahko predložila v utemeljitev te trditve.
I therefore propose that, in answer to the questions referred, the Court should rule as follows:
Zato predlagam, naj Sodi�če pri odgovarjanju na vpra�anja za predhodno odločanje razsodi:
Member States are not under an obligation to guarantee protection under the general principle of equality (including equal treatment irrespective of age) contained in Community law if the alleged discriminatory treatment does not fall within the scope of Community law.
(1) Države članice niso dolžne zagotavljati varstva na podlagi splo�nega načela enakosti (skupaj z enakim obravnavanjem ne glede na starost), ki je vsebovano v pravu Skupnosti, če izpodbijano diskriminatorno obravnavanje ne spada na področje uporabe prava Skupnosti.
There is no specific substantive rule of Community law that may serve as the basis for applying the general principle of equality (including equal treatment irrespective of age) to the situation giving rise to the reference.
(2) Ni materialnega pravila prava Skupnosti, ki bi lahko bilo podlaga za uporabo splo�nega načela enakosti (skupaj z enakim obravnavanjem ne glede na starost) za položaj, ki je pripeljal do vpra�anj za predhodno odločanje.
23 September 2008 *
SODBA SODIŠČA (veliki senat) z dne 23. septembra 2008 *
REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany), made by decision of 27 June 2006, received at the Court on 18 October 2006, in the proceedings
V zadevi C-427/06, katere predmet je predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe na podlagi člena 234 ES, ki ga je vložilo Bundesarbeitsgericht (Nemčija) z odločbo z dne 27. junija 2006, ki je prispela na Sodi�če 18. oktobra 2006, v postopku
JUDGMENT OF 23. 9.
SODBA Z DNE 23. 9.
2008 — CASE C-427/06
2008 – ZADEVA C-427/06 generalna pravobranilka: E. Sharpston, sodna tajnica: C.
Advocate General: E. Sharpston, Registrar: C. Strömholm, Administrator, having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 10 October 2007, after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:
Strömholm, administratorka, na podlagi pisnega postopka in obravnave z dne 10. oktobra 2007, ob upo�tevanju stali�č, ki so jih predložili:
BARTSCH gives the following
BARTSCH izreka naslednjo
This reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 13 EC, of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p.
Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe se nana�a na razlago člena 13 ES Direktive Sveta 2000/78/ES z dne 27. novembra 2000 o splo�nih okvirih enakega obravnavanja pri zaposlovanju in delu (UL L 303, str.
16), and of general principles of Community law.
16) in splo�nih načel prava Skupnosti.
The Community rules
Skupnostna ureditev
‘The purpose of this Directive is to lay down a general framework for combating discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual
„Namen te direktive je opredeliti splo�ni okvir boja proti diskriminaciji zaradi vere ali prepričanja, hendikepiranosti, starosti ali spolne usmerjenosti pri zaposlovanju in delu, zato da bi v državah članicah uresničevali načelo enakega obravnavanja.“
2008 — CASE C-427/06 orientation as regards employment and occupation, with a view to putting into effect in the Member States the principle of equal treatment.’
2008 – ZADEVA C-427/06
Article 6 states:
V členu 6 iste direktive je določeno:
Notwithstanding Article 2(2), Member States may provide that differences of treatment on grounds of age shall not constitute discrimination, if, within the context of national law, they are objectively and reasonably justified by a legitimate aim, including legitimate employment policy, labour market and vocational training objectives, and if the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary.
Ne glede na člen 2(2) lahko države članice predvidijo, da različno obravnavanje zaradi starosti ne predstavlja diskriminacije, če ga v kontekstu nacionalnega prava objektivno in razumno utemeljujejo z legitimnim ciljem, vključno z legitimnimi cilji zaposlovalne politike, delovnega trga in poklicnega usposabljanja, in če so načini uresničevanja tega cilja primerni in nujni.
Such differences of treatment may include, among others:
Tako različno obravnavanje je lahko med drugim:
(a) the setting of special conditions on access to employment and vocational training, employment and occupation, including dismissal and remuneration conditions, for young people, older workers and persons with caring responsibilities in order to promote their vocational integration or ensure their protection;
(a) določitev posebnih pogojev glede dostopnosti zaposlitve in poklicnega usposabljanja, zaposlitve in dela, vključno s pogoji glede odpustitve in plačila, za mlade osebe, starej�e delavce in osebe, ki so dolžne skrbeti za druge, zato da se spodbuja njihovo poklicno vključenost ali jim zagotavlja varstvo;
(b) the fixing of minimum conditions of age, professional experience or seniority in service for access to employment or to certain advantages linked to employment;
(b) z določitvijo minimalnih pogojev glede starosti, delovnih izku�enj ali delovne dobe glede dostopa do zaposlitve ali kak�nih ugodnosti, povezanih z zaposlenostjo;
(c) the fixing of a maximum age for recruitment which is based on the training requirements of the post in question or the need for a reasonable period of employment before retirement.
(c) z določitvijo najvi�je starosti za zaposlitev, ki temelji na zahtevah glede usposobljenosti za zadevno delovno mesto, ali na potrebi po primerni dobi zaposlenosti pred upokojitvijo.
Notwithstanding Article 2(2), Member States may provide that the fixing for occupational social security schemes of ages for admission or entitlement to retirement or invalidity benefits, including the fixing under those schemes of different ages for employees or groups or categories of employees, and the use, in the context of such schemes, of age criteria in actuarial calculations, does not constitute discrimination on the grounds of age, provided this does not result in discrimination on the grounds of sex.’
Ne glede na člen 2(2) lahko države članice predvidijo, da določitev starosti za upokojitev ali pridobitev pravice do starostne ali invalidske pokojnine za potrebe panožnih programov socialne varnosti, vključno z določitvijo različnih starosti za delojemalce oziroma skupine ali kategorije delojemalcev v teh programih in z uporabo merila starosti pri izračunu rizičnosti v kontekstu teh programov, ne predstavlja diskriminacije zaradi starosti, pod pogojem, da ni rezultat diskriminacije zaradi spola.“
In accordance with the first paragraph of Article 18 of the directive, the latter was to be transposed into the national law of the Member States by 2 December 2003 at the latest.
V skladu s členom 18, prvi odstavek, navedene direktive bi morale države članice to direktivo v svoje pravne rede prenesti najpozneje 2. decembra 2003.
However, the second paragraph of that article states:
Vendar pa drugi odstavek tega člena določa:
‘In order to take account of particular conditions, Member States may, if necessary, have an additional period of three years from 2 December 2003, that is to say a total of six years, to implement the provisions of this Directive on age and disability discrimination.
„Da se upo�tevajo posebne okoli�čine, si države članice po 2. decembru 2003 po potrebi lahko vzamejo �e dodatno obdobje treh let, torej v celoti 6 let, da izvedejo določbe te direktive v zvezi z diskriminacijo zaradi starosti ali hendikepiranosti.
In that event they shall inform the Commission forthwith. …’
V tem primeru o tem takoj obvestijo Komisijo. […]“
The Federal Republic of Germany made use of this option, so that the provisions of Directive 2000/78 on age and disability discrimination were to be implemented in that Member State by 2 December 2006 at the latest.
Zvezna republika Nemčija je izkoristila to možnost, tako da bi moral biti prenos določb Direktive 2000/78 glede diskriminacije zaradi starosti in hendikepiranosti opravljen najpozneje 2. decembra 2006.
2008 — CASE C-427/06
2008 – ZADEVA C-427/06
Paragraph 6(4) of the BSH Altersfürsorge guidelines dated 1 January 1984, in the version of 1 April 1992 (‘the guidelines’), provides:
Člen 6(4) smernic BSH Altersfürsorge z dne 1. januarja 1984 v različici, ki je veljala od 1. aprila 1992 (v nadaljevanju: smernice), določa:
‘Conditions for the retirement pension
„Pogoji za izplačilo pokojnine
A retirement pension (Paragraph 5(1)(b)) shall be paid to the widow(er) of an employee who has died during his or her employment relationship and who had fulfilled the qualifying period (Paragraph 2) provided that a claim for a survivor’s pension (widow(er)’s pension) exists under the German statutory pension insurance scheme.
Pokojnina [iz člena 5(1)(b)] se plača vdovi ali vdovcu delavca, ki je umrl med trajanjem delovnega razmerja […] in je dopolnil čakalno dobo (iz člena 2), če in dokler ji/mu nem�ko zakonsko zavarovanje za primer starosti priznava pravico do družinske pokojnine (pokojnina vdovca oziroma vdove).
This applies mutatis mutandis to the widow(er) of the recipient of a retirement pension.
Ustrezno pravilo se uporablja za vdovo ali vdovca prejemnika pokojnine.
Payments will not be made if
Dajatev se ne izplačuje, če
(a) the widow/widower is more than 15 years younger than the former employee,
(a) je vdova ali vdovec več kot petnajst let mlaj�a/-i od nekdanjega delavca
It is apparent from the decision to refer that Mrs Bartsch, who was born in 1965, married Mr Bartsch in 1986.
Iz predložitvene odločbe izhaja, da je B. Bartsch, rojena leta 1965, leta 1986 sklenila zakonsko zvezo z g. Bartschem, ki se je rodil leta 1944 in umrl 5. maja 2004. G.
It is also apparent from the decision to refer that the employment relationship between Mr Bartsch and BSH was governed by the guidelines and, in particular, Paragraph 6 thereof.
Poleg tega iz predložitvene odločbe izhaja, da so delovno razmerje med g. Bartschem in družbo BSH urejale smernice, zlasti njihov člen 6.
The situation in the main proceedings falls within the terms of Paragraph 6(4)(a) of the guidelines in so far as Mrs Bartsch is more than 15 years younger than her deceased husband.
Položaj v glavni stvari urejajo določbe člena 6(4), drugi pododstavek, (a), smernic, ker je B. Bartsch več kot petnajst let mlaj�a od svojega umrlega moža.
BSH Altersfürsorge rejected Mrs Bartsch’s request and she applied to the Arbeitsgericht (Labour Court) for a declaration that the provident fund was obliged to pay her a pension in accordance with the guidelines.
Ker je sklad BSH Altersfürsorge zavrnil zahtevo B. Bartsch, je ta zadevo predložila Arbeitsgericht in mu predlagala, naj ugotovi, da ji je ta sklad na podlagi smernic dolžan plačati pokojnino. Ker Arbeitsgericht njenemu predlogu ni ugodilo, se je obrnila na Landesarbeitsgericht, ki je potrdilo sodbo prvostopenjskega sodi�ča.