natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
It follows that a provision such as the first point of Paragraph 110(1) of the EnWG does not come within the scope of any of the exceptions or derogations from the principle of open access to electricity transmission or distribution systems laid down by Directive 2003/54.
Iz tega sledi, da taka določba, kot je člen 110(1), točka 1, EnWG, ne spada na področje uporabe nobene od izjem ali odstopanj od načela prostega dostopa do omrežij za prenos in distribucijo električne energije, določenih z Direktivo 2003/54.
It follows from all the foregoing that Article 20(1) of Directive 2003/54 must be interpreted as precluding a provision such as the first point of Paragraph 110(1) of the EnWG, which exempts certain operators of energy supply systems from the obligation to provide third parties with open access to those systems on the grounds that they are located on a geographically connected operation zone and that they predominantly serve to supply the energy needs of the undertaking itself and of connected undertakings.
Iz vseh teh ugotovitev izhaja, da je treba člen 20(1) Direktive 2003/54 razlagati tako, da nasprotuje taki določbi, kot je člen 110(1), točka 1, EnWG, s katero se nekatere upravljavce omrežij za oskrbo z energijo oprosti obveznosti, da tretjim stranem omogočijo prost dostop do teh omrežij, z obrazložitvijo, da se slednja nahajajo na obratovalnem območju, ki je funkcionalna enota, in ki služijo zlasti oskrbi z energijo samega podjetja in priključenih podjetij.
‘Article 20(1) of Directive 2003/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 96/92/EC must be interpreted as precluding a provision such as the first point of Paragraph 110(1) of the Law on electricity and gas supply, referred to as ‘the Law on energy management’ (Gesetz über die Elektrizitäts- und Gasversorgung (Energiewirtschaftsgesetz)) of 7 July 2005, which exempts certain operators of energy supply systems from the obligation to provide third parties with open access to those systems on the grounds that they are located on a geographically connected operation zone and that they predominantly serve to supply the energy needs of the undertaking itself and of connected undertakings.’
Člen 20(1) Direktive 2003/54 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 26. junija 2003 o skupnih pravilih za notranji trg z električno energijo in o razveljavitvi Direktive 96/92/ES je treba razlagati tako, da nasprotuje taki določbi, kot je člen 110(1), točka 1, zakona o oskrbi električne energijo in plinom, tako imenova -nega zakona o racionalnem upravljanju z energijo (Gesetz über die Elektrizitäts und Gasversorgung (Energiewirtschaftsgesetz)) z dne 7. julija 2005, s katero se nekatere upravljavce omrežij za oskrbo z energijo oprosti obveznosti, da tretjim stranem omogočijo prost dostop do teh omrežij, z obrazložitvijo, da se slednja nahajajo na obratovalnem območju, ki je funkcionalna enota, in ki služijo zlasti oskrbi z energijo samega podjetja in priključenih podjetij.
Case C-462/06
Zadeva C-462/06
(Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Section 5 of Chapter II — Jurisdiction over individual contracts of employment — Section 2 of Chapter II — Special jurisdiction — Article 6(1) — More than one defendant)
„Uredba (ES) �t. 44/2001 – Oddelek 5 poglavja II – Pristojnost glede individualnih pogodb o zaposlitvi – Oddelek 2 navedenega poglavja – Posebna pristojnost – Člen 6(1) – Več toženih strank“
Opinion of Advocate General Poiares Maduro delivered on 17 January 2008 . .
Poiaresa Madura, predstavljeni 17. januarja 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I - 3967Judgment of the Court (First Chamber), 22 May 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sodba Sodi�ča (prvi senat) z dne 22. maja 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation No 44/2001 — Jurisdiction over individual contracts of employment — More than one defendant
Pravosodno sodelovanje v civilnih zadevah – Sodna pristojnost in izvrševanje sodnih odločb v civilnih in gospodarskih zadevah – Uredba št. 44/2001 – Pristojnost glede individualnih pogodb o zaposlitvi – Več toženih strank
(Council Regulation No 44/2001, Art. 6(1))
(Uredba Sveta št. 44/2001, člen 6, točka 1)
SUMMARY — CASE C-462/06
POVZETEK – ZADEVA C-462/06
The rule of special jurisdiction provided for in Article 6(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters cannot be applied to a dispute falling under Section 5 of Chapter II of that regulation concerning the jurisdiction rules applicable to individual contracts of employment.
Pravilo o posebni pristojnosti iz člena 6, točka 1, Uredbe �t. 44/2001 o pristojnosti in priznavanju ter izvr�evanju sodnih odločb v civilnih in gospodarskih zadevah se ne more uporabiti v sporu, ki spada pod oddelek 5 poglavja II te uredbe, ki se nana�a na pravila o pristojnosti, ki se uporabljajo za individualne pogodbe o zaposlitvi.
As regards the possibility that only an employee may rely on Article 6(1) of the regulation, that would run counter to the wording of both that provision and Section 5 of Chapter II of that regulation.
Glede možnosti, da bi se zgolj delavec lahko skliceval na člen 6, točka 1, Uredbe, je treba poudariti, da je ta možnost v nasprotju z besedilom tako te določbe kot določb oddelka 5 poglavja II te uredbe.
The transformation by the Community courts of the rules of special jurisdiction, aimed at facilitating sound administration of justice, into rules of unilateral jurisdiction protecting the party deemed to be weaker would go beyond the balance of interests which the Community legislature has established in the law as it currently stands.
Namreč to, da sodi�če Skupnosti pravila o posebni pristojnosti, ki so namenjena zagotavljanju dobrega delovanja sodnega organa, spremeni v pravila o enostranski pristojnosti, ki varujejo stranko, ki naj bi bila �ibkej�a, bi �lo prek ravnovesja interesov, ki jih je zakonodajalec Skupnosti postavil v sedanjem stanju prava.
Furthermore, such an interpretation would be difficult to reconcile with the principle of legal certainty, which is one of the objectives of the regulation and which requires, in particular, that rules of jurisdiction be interpreted in such a way as to be highly predictable.
Poleg tega bi bila taka razlaga težko združljiva z načelom pravne varnosti, ki je eden od ciljev Uredbe in ki zlasti zahteva, da je treba pravila o pristojnosti razlagati tako, da so čim bolj predvidljiva.
It is apparent from Article 18(1) of that regulation and, moreover, from a literal interpretation of Section 5, supported by the ‘travaux préparatoires’ relating to the regulation, that the court having jurisdiction in proceedings concerning an individual contract of employment must be designated in accordance with the jurisdiction rules laid down in that section, rules which, on account of their specific and exhaustive nature, cannot be amended or supplemented by other rules of jurisdiction laid down in that regulation unless specific reference is made thereto in Section 5.
Iz člena 18(1) te uredbe in iz dobesedne razlage navedenega oddelka 5, ki jo potrjujejo pripravljalna dela v zvezi s tem, izhaja, da je treba vsak spor, ki se nana�a na individualno pogodbo o zaposlitvi, predložiti sodi�ču, ki je pristojno v skladu s pravili o pristojnosti iz tega oddelka, namreč pravili, ki jih zaradi njihove posebnosti in izčrpnosti ni mogoče spremeniti ali nadomestiti z drugimi pravili o pristojnosti, določenimi v isti uredbi, razen če se ta oddelek nanje izrecno ne sklicuje.
(see paras 19-24, 32, 33, 35, operative part)
(Glej točke od 19 do 24, 32, 33 in 35 ter izrek.)
I — Legal and factual framework of the dispute
I – Pravni in dejanski okvir spora
A — Legal framework
A – Pravni okvir
By the present reference for a preliminary ruling the Cour de cassation (Court of Cassation) (France) asks the Court for an interpretation of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, 2which is the successor to and replaces the Brussels Convention. 3
Cour de cassation (Francija) s tem predlogom za sprejetje predhodne odločbe predlaga Sodi�ču, naj se izreče o razlagi Uredbe Sveta (ES) �t. 44/2001 z dne 22. decembra 2000 o pristojnosti in priznavanju ter izvr�evanju sodnih odločb v civilnih in gospodarskih zadevah 2, ki je nasledila in nadomestila Bruseljsko konvencijo 3.
Article 2 of Regulation No 44/2001 states:
V členu 2 Uredbe �t. 44/2001 je določeno:
‘Subject to this Regulation, persons domiciled in a Member State shall, whatever their nationality, be sued in the courts of that Member State.’
„Ob upo�tevanju določb te uredbe so osebe s stalnim prebivali�čem v državi članici ne glede na njihovo državljanstvo tožene pred sodi�či te države članice.“
Article 6 of Regulation No 44/2001, which forms part of Section 2, entitled ‘Special Jurisdiction’, provides that a person domiciled in a Member State may be sued in another Member State:
V členu 6 Uredbe �t. 44/2001 iz oddelka 2 z naslovom „Posebna pristojnost“ je določeno, da je oseba s stalnim prebivali�čem v državi članici lahko tožena v drugi državi članici:
More specifically, the referring court wishes to ascertain whether Section 5 on employment contracts, introduced by Regulation No 44/2001, must be regarded as governing exhaustively and exclusively the rules on jurisdiction concerning such contracts or whether, on the contrary, the rules on jurisdiction laid down in the section on employment contracts may be supplemented by the rules on special jurisdiction laid down in Article 6(1) of Section 2 of that regulation.
Natančneje, predložitveno sodi�če želi vedeti, ali je treba oddelek 5, ki se nana�a na pogodbe o zaposlitvi in je bil uveden z Uredbo �t. 44/2001, �teti, kot da izčrpno in izključno ureja pravila glede pristojnosti za navedene pogodbe, oziroma ali je pravila glede pristojnosti, navedena v oddelku, ki se nana�a na pogodbo o zaposlitvi, mogoče dopolniti s pravilom o posebni pristojnosti, navedenim v členu 6(1) oddelka 2 zgoraj navedene uredbe.
3 — Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (consolidated version), OJ 1998 C 27, p. 1.
3 – Konvencija z dne 27. septembra 1968 o pristojnosti in priznavanju ter izvr�evanju sodnih odločb v civilnih in gospodarskih zadevah (konsolidirana verzija), UL 1998, C 27, str. 1.
‘An employer domiciled in a Member State may be sued: where he is one of a number of defendants, in the courts for the place where any one of them is domiciled, provided the claims are so closely connected that it is expedient to hear and determine them together to avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments resulting from separate proceedings;
če je ena od več toženih oseb, tudi pred sodi�čem kraja, kjer ima ena od njih stalno prebivali�če, če so tožbeni zahtevki med seboj tako tesno povezani, da jih je smotrno obravnavati in o njih odločati skupaj, da bi se s tem izognili tveganju nezdružljivosti sodnih odločb, ki bi lahko bile posledica ločenih postopkov; pred sodi�či v državi članici, kjer ima stalno prebivali�če, ali
(2) in another Member State:
v drugi državi članici:
(a) in the courts for the place where the employee habitually carries out his work or in the courts for the last place where he did so, or
a) pred sodi�či v kraju, kjer delavec običajno opravlja svoje delo, ali pred sodi�či v kraju, kjer je nazadnje opravljal svoje delo, ali
Section 5 of Regulation No 44/2001, entitled ‘Jurisdiction over individual contracts of employment’, consists of Articles 18 to 21.
Natančneje, v členu 18(1) Uredbe �t. 44/2001 je določeno: b) če delavec običajno ne opravlja ali ni opravljal svojega dela v eni in isti državi, pred sodi�či v kraju, kjer se nahaja ali se je nahajala poslovna enota, ki je zaposlila delavca.“
More specifically, Article 18(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 provides: if the employee does not or did not habitually carry out his work in any one country, in the courts for the place where the business which engaged the employee is or was situated.’
V zadevah v zvezi z individualnimi pogodbami o zaposlitvi se pristojnost določa v skladu s tem oddelkom brez poseganja v člen 4 in v peto točko člena 5.“
B — The legal context of the dispute
B – Dejanski okvir spora
Mr Rouard, the defendant in the main proceedings, was engaged in 1977 by the company Laboratoires Beecham Sévigné, now Laboratoires Glaxosmithkline, the seat
Rouard, tožena stranka v postopku v glavni stvari, se je leta 1977 zaposlil v družbi
In that same Section 5 Article 19 of the Regulation states:
V členu 19 Uredbe je v istem oddelku 5 določeno:
GLAXOSMITHKLINE AND LABORATOIRES GLAXOSMITHKLINE companies, which, in addition, belong to the same group.
Zato naj bi bilo po njegovem mnenju francosko sodi�če, ki je pristojno glede družbe Laboratoires Glaxosmithkline, ki ima sedež v Franciji, v skladu s členom 6, točka 1, Uredbe �t.
Since the French courts have jurisdiction in respect of Laboratoires Glaxosmithkline, the seat of which is in France, those courts, he submits, also have jurisdiction, pursuant to Article 6(1) of Regulation No 44/2001, in respect of Glaxosmithkline even though that company is established in the United Kingdom.
44/2001 prav tako pristojno glede družbe Glaxosmithkline, čeprav ima slednja sedež v Združenem kraljestvu.
He was sent by that company on various postings to third countries.
Za navedeno družbo je opravil različne naloge na ozemlju tretjih držav.
The Conseil de prud’hommes, in accordance with the line of defence of the two employers, declined jurisdiction, however, pointing out that the employment contracts in force at the time of his dismissal were governed by English and Moroccan law.
Conseil de prud’hommes se je v skladu z obrambo obeh delodajalcev razglasilo za nepristojno, pri čemer je navedlo, da je za pogodbe o zaposlitvi, ki so veljale v času odpovedi delovnega razmerja, veljalo angle�ko in maro�ko pravo. Zato odtlej ni bilo nobenega podrejenega razmerja med J. P. Rouardom in družbo Laboratoires Glaxosmithkline v Franciji. Cour d’appel de Versailles je to odločbo razveljavilo in stranke napotilo pred Conseil de prud’hommes.
The appellant companies in the main proceedings then brought an appeal before the Cour de cassation.
Družbi, tožeči stranki v postopku v glavni stvari, sta nato pri Cour de cassation vložili pritožbo.
On 9 March 2001 Beecham Research UK, now Glaxosmithkline, dismissed Mr Rouard.
Družba Beecham Research UK, ki je postala družba Glaxosmithkline, je 9. marca 2001 J. P.
Mr Rouard requests that those companies be ordered jointly and severally to pay various amounts of compensation, together with damages for noncompliance with the dismissal procedure, dismissal without genuine and serious cause and wrongful breach of contract.
Rouard predlaga, naj se navedenima družbama naloži solidarno plačilo različnih nadomestil in od�kodnine z obrestmi zaradi nespo�tovanja postopka odpovedi delovnega razmerja, zaradi odpovedi delovnega razmerja brez dejanskega in resnega vzroka in zaradi nezakonite odpovedi pogodbe.
It is in those circumstances that the Cour de cassation decided to stay proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court for a preliminary ruling:
V teh okoli�činah je najvi�je sodi�če prekinilo odločanje in Sodi�ču v predhodno odločanje predložilo to vpra�anje:
‘Does the rule of special jurisdiction stated in Article 6(1) of Council Regulation …
„Ali se pravilo o posebni pristojnosti, navedeno v členu 6, točka 1, Uredbe […] �t.
In order to answer the question it must, first, be determined whether the rule of special jurisdiction stated in Article 6(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 may be applied in the context of individual contracts of employment, even though there is a section within the Regulation which concerns specifically the rules of jurisdiction applicable to disputes concerning such contracts, and, if so, the conditions governing the application of Article 6(1) of the Regulation in such matters must then be considered and defined.
44/2001, mogoče uporabiti v okviru individualnih pogodb o zaposlitvi, čeprav v okviru Uredbe obstaja oddelek, ki se posebej nana�a na pravila o pristojnosti, ki se uporabljajo v sporih glede navedenih pogodb, in nato, če bo odgovor pritrdilen, opozoriti na pogoje, ki se nana�ajo na uporabo člena 6, točka 1, navedene uredbe na tem področju, in jih pojasniti.
A — The applicability of Article 6(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 in matters relating to individual contracts of employment
A – Uporabljivost člena 6, točka 1, Uredbe št. 44/2001 na področju individualnih pogodb o zaposlitvi
No 44/2001 …, by virtue of which a person domiciled in a Member State may be sued “where he is one of a number of defendants, in the courts for the place where any of them is domiciled, provided the claims are so closely connected that it is expedient to hear and determine them together to avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments resulting from separate proceedings”, apply to proceedings brought by an employee before a court of a Member State against two companies belonging to the same group, one of which, being the one which engaged that employee for the group and refused to re-employ him, is domiciled in that Member State and the other, for which the employee last worked in non-Member States and which dismissed him, in another Member State, when that applicant relies on a clause in the employment contract to claim that the two [companies] were his co-employers from whom he claims compensation for his dismissal or does the rule in Article 18(1) of [R]egulation [No 44/2001], by virtue of which, in matters relating to individual contracts of employment, jurisdiction is to be determined by Section 5 of Chapter II [of that regulation], exclude the application of Article 6(1) [of that regulation], so that each of the two companies must be sued before the courts of the Member State where it is domiciled[?]’
44/2001 […] – na podlagi katerega je oseba s stalnim prebivali�čem v državi članici lahko tožena, ‚če je ena od več toženih oseb, tudi pred sodi�čem kraja, kjer ima ena od njih stalno prebivali�če, če so tožbeni zahtevki med seboj tako tesno povezani, da jih je smotrno obravnavati in o njih odločati skupaj, da bi se s tem izognili tveganju nezdružljivosti sodnih odločb, ki bi lahko bile posledica ločenih postopkov‘ – lahko uporabi v postopku, ki ga pred sodi�čem države članice sproži zaposlena oseba proti družbama, ki sodita v isto skupino in med katerima ima prva – tista, ki ga je zaposlila za skupino in ga kasneje ni želela ponovno sprejeti na delo – sedež v tej državi članici, druga – za račun katere je zadevna oseba nazadnje delala v tretjih državah in ki je zadevno osebo odpustila – pa v drugi državi članici, pri čemer se ta vložnik zahtevka sklicuje na določilo pogodbe o zaposlitvi, da bi dokazal, da sta družbi bili njegova sodelodajalca, od katerih zahteva nadomestilo za svojo odpustitev, ali pa člen 18, točka 1, Uredbe [�t. 44/2001], na podlagi katerega se v zadevah v zvezi z individualnimi pogodbami o zaposlitvi pristojnost določa v skladu z oddelkom [5] poglavja II [te uredbe], izključuje uporabo člena 6, točka 1, [te uredbe] tako, da mora biti vsaka od družb tožena pred sodi�čem države članice, kjer ima sedež[?]“
II — Legal analysis
II – Pravna presoja
The question referred falls into two
V bistvu se Sodi�ču predlaga, naj odloči, ali so v oddelku 5 poglavja II Uredbe �t.
GLAXOSMITHKLINE AND LABORATOIRES GLAXOSMITHKLINE
GLAXOSMITHKLINE IN LABORATOIRES GLAXOSMITHKLINE v oddelku 5 te uredbe (členi od 18 do 21), po drugi strani pa, da so izjeme od načel, navedene v oddelku 5, z Uredbo izrecno določene.
(Articles 18 to 21) and, second, that if there are any exceptions to the application of the principles set out in Section 5, they are expressly laid down in the Regulation. In so far as Article 6(1) does not fall within Section 5 and is not referred to, as Articles 4 and 5(5) are, as an exception to the application of the rules laid down in that section, the special jurisdiction under Article 6(1) is not therefore applicable to disputes concerning contracts of employment.
Če člen 6, točka 1, ne spada pod oddelek 5 in če ni, v nasprotju s členoma 4 in 5, točka 5, opredeljen kot izjema od uporabe pravil, določenih v tem oddelku, posebna pristojnost iz člena 6, točka 1, torej ni uporabljiva za spore glede pogodb o zaposlitvi.
Anticipating the arguments that follow, I would point out at this juncture that the applicability to a dispute concerning an individual contract of employment of the special jurisdiction provided for in Article 6(1) of Regulation No 44/2001, which makes it possible, when the claims are related, to sue a number of defendants before the courts where any one of them is domiciled, must, in my view, be accepted even though a literal interpretation of Section 5 concerning contracts of employment appears, at first sight, to preclude it.
Glede na argumente, ki bodo sledili, bom na tem mestu poudaril, da se zdi, da je treba sprejeti, da je člen 6, točka 1, Uredbe �t. 44/2001, v skladu s katerim je mogoče več toženih oseb tožiti pred sodi�čem v kraju, kjer ima stalno prebivali�če ena od njih, če so pravde sorodne, uporabljiv za spor, ki se nana�a na individualno pogodbo o zaposlitvi, čeprav se na prvi pogled zdi, da dobesedna razlaga oddelka 5, ki se nana�a na pogodbe o zaposlitvi, temu nasprotuje.
In order to clarify the solution which I propose that the Court should adopt, I will begin by setting out, first of all, the arguments which appear to exclude the applicability of Article 6(1) in the context of disputes concerning individual contracts of employment and then explain why such an interpretation should not, in my view, be adopted by the Court.
Da bi bolje razumeli re�itev, ki jo predlagam Sodi�ču, bom najprej navedel argumente, ki naj bi izključevali uporabljivost člena 6, točka 1, v okviru sporov, ki se nana�ajo na individualne pogodbe o zaposlitvi, zato da bi potem dokazal, da po mojem mnenju Sodi�če ne sme sprejeti take razlage.
In addition, since Section 5 constitutes a derogation from the principle, laid down in Article 2 of the Regulation, 4that the courts having jurisdiction must be those for the place where the defendant is domiciled, the rules laid down in Article 18 to 21 of Section 5 should be interpreted strictly, so that only the exceptions to the application of the principle that jurisdiction is based on the defendant’s domicile that are expressly laid down in that section are allowed.
Ker poleg tega oddelek 5 pomeni odstopanje od načelne pristojnosti iz člena 2 Uredbe 4, v skladu s katerim se pristojnost določa po stalnem prebivali�ču toženca, bi bilo treba pravila iz členov od 18 do 21 oddelka 5 razlagati ozko, in sicer tako, da bi bilo mogoče sprejeti zgolj tiste izjeme od načela, da se pristojnost določa po stalnem prebivali�ču toženca, ki bi bile v tem oddelku izrecno navedene.
It is true that, in stating that ‘[i]n matters relating to individual contracts of employment, jurisdiction shall be determined by this Section, without prejudice to Article 4 and point 5 of Article 5 [of the Regulation]’, Article 18(1) of Regulation No 44/2001, read in isolation, appears to confirm an interpretation to the effect that any rule of jurisdiction which is not laid down in or expressly authorised by Section 5 should be rejected if the dispute concerns a contract of employment.
Res je, da se zdi, da člen 18(1) Uredbe �t. 44/2001, v katerem je določeno, da se „[v] zadevah v zvezi z individualnimi pogodbami o zaposlitvi […] pristojnost določa v skladu s tem oddelkom brez poseganja v člen 4 in v peto točko člena 5 [te uredbe]“, sam zase potrjuje razlago, v skladu s katero je treba zavrniti vsako pravilo o pristojnosti, ki ni navedeno ali izrecno dopustno v oddelku 5, če se spor nana�a na pogodbo o zaposlitvi.