natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In the light of the arguments exchanged, the referring court is faced with a series of questions which are decisive for the resolution of the dispute in the main proceedings and which turn on the interpretation of Community law.
Ob upo�tevanju trditev strank je predložitveno sodi�če soočeno z vrsto vpra�anj, ki so odločilna za re�itev spora o glavni stvari in ki so odvisna od razlage prava Skupnosti.
First, while the 2003 Act does not expressly confer jurisdiction upon it to adjudicate on a claim which requires the application of directly effective Community law, the Labour Court nevertheless has doubts as to whether, in the light of Article 10 EC, on the one hand, and the principles of equivalence and effectiveness underpinning the procedural autonomy of the Member States, on the other, it may decline jurisdiction to consider the claims in the main proceedings in so far as they are based on Direct- ive 1999/70 and the framework agreement.
Prvič, čeprav mu zakon iz leta 2003 ne podeljuje izrecno pristojnosti za odločanje o zahtevi, ki temelji na neposredni uporabi prava Skupnosti, to sodi�če ob upo�tevanju na eni strani člena 10 ES ter na drugi strani načel enakovrednosti in učinkovitosti, ki so okvir procesne avtonomije držav članic, vendar dvomi, da se lahko izreče za nepristojno za odločanje o zahtevah iz postopka v glavni stvari v delu, v katerem temeljijo na Direktivi 1999/70 in okvirnem sporazumu.
Second, on the assumption that it does have jurisdiction to apply Community law, the referring court questions whether Clauses 4 and 5 of the framework agreement — on which the claims in the main proceedings are based so far as concerns the period between 10 July 2001 and 14 July 2003 — are unconditional and sufficiently precise so as to be directly effective.
Drugič, ob predpostavki, da je pristojno za uporabo prava Skupnosti, se predložitveno sodi�če spra�uje, ali sta določbi 4 in 5 okvirnega sporazuma, na katerih so utemeljene zahteve iz postopka v glavni stvari, ki se nana�ajo na obdobje med 10. julijem 2001 in 14. julijem 2003, brezpogojni in dovolj natančni, da bi imeli neposredni učinek.
It takes the view that this is the case only in respect of Clause 4.
Po njegovem mnenju to velja le za določbo 4.
Third, the referring court questions whether Clause 5 of the framework agreement may be relied upon so as to render unlawful the decision taken by one of the respondents in the main proceedings in the period immediately prior to the entry into force of the 2003 Act to retain some of the complainants in the main proceedings on contracts of up to eight years’ duration.
Tretjič, predložitveno sodi�če se spra�uje, ali se lahko na temelju določbe 5 okvirnega sporazuma ugotovi nezakonitost odločbe, ki jo je sprejela ena izmed nasprotnih strank iz postopka v glavni stvari v obdobju neposredno pred začetkom veljavnosti zakona iz leta 2003, o ohranitvi pogodb nekaterih pritožnikov iz postopka v glavni stvari za obdobje do osmih let.
The referring court takes the view that, notwithstanding the apparent absence of bad faith on the part of the relevant defendant and its explanation concerning tem -porary needs and the impossibility of guaranteeing permanent funding for the posts concerned, the specific effect of that decision was to deprive the complainants in the main proceedings of the opportunity to obtain a contract of indefinite duration within a reasonable time after the adoption of the 2003 Act.
To sodi�če meni, da čeprav ni očitno, da zadevna nasprotna stranka iz postopka v glavni stvari ni ravnala v dobri veri, in kljub njenim pojasnilom v zvezi z začasnimi potrebami in nezmožnostjo zagotoviti stalno financiranje zadevnih delovnih mest, je bila s to odločbo pritožnikom iz postopka v glavni stvari odvzeta možnost pridobiti pogodbo o zaposlitvi za nedoločen čas v razumnem roku po sprejetju zakona iz leta 2003.
The referring court considers that, by that decision, Ireland gained an advantage at the expense of those complainants from its own illegality in failing to transpose Directive 1999/70 on time.
Predložitveno sodi�če meni, da je s to odločbo Irska pridobila korist na račun navedenih pritožnikov zaradi nezakonitosti, ki jo je sama povzročila s tem, da ni prenesla Direktive 1999/70 v predvidenem roku.
Fourth, on the assumption that it does not have jurisdiction to apply Community law or that Clauses 4 and 5 of the framework agreement are not directly effective, the referring court questions whether its obligation to interpret national law in conformity with Community law means that it must interpret the 2003 Act as having retrospective effect to 10 July 2001.
Četrtič, ob predpostavki, da ni pristojno za uporabo prava Skupnosti ali da določbi 4 in 5 okvirnega sporazuma nimata neposrednega učinka, se predložitveno sodi�če spra�uje, ali obveznost skladne razlage, ki velja zanj, pomeni, da mora zakon iz leta 2003 razlagati tako, da velja retroaktivno od 10. julija 2001.
The referring court notes that, while Irish law generally precludes the retrospective application of legislation, there is nothing in section 6 of the 2003 Act to prevent it from being applied retrospectively.
To sodi�če poudarja, da čeprav irsko pravo načeloma izključuje retroaktivno uporabo zakonov, ni v členu 6 zakona iz leta 2003 nobene navedbe, ki bi nasprotovala njegovi retroaktivni uporabi.
The referring court goes on to state that, while the interpretative obligation is indeed limited by the principles of legal certainty and nonretroactivity and cannot, of itself and irrespective of national legislation implementing Directive 1999/70, determine or aggravate the liability in criminal law resulting from an infringement of Community law, the question nevertheless arises in the present case as to whether that obligation means that domestic law can be applied retrospectively so as to impose civil liability on a Member State, in its capacity as an employer, for acts or omissions contrary to the provisions of a dir -ective which occurred at a time when that directive ought to have been transposed by the Member State in question.
Pri tem dodaja, da je sicer obveznost skladne razlage omejena z načeloma pravne varnosti in prepovedi retroaktivnosti in da ne more sama po sebi in neodvisno od nacionalnega zakona za izvr�evanje Direktive 1999/70 določiti ali poslab�ati kazenske odgovornosti, ki izhaja iz kr�itve prava Skupnosti, vendar pa se v obravnavanem primeru postavlja vpra�anje, ali ta obveznost pomeni, da se lahko nacionalno pravo retroaktivno uporabi in tako naloži civilno odgovornost državi članici kot delodajalcu za dejanja ali opustitve v nasprotju z direktivo, ki so nastala v obdobju, ko bi država članica morala prenesti to direktivo.
Fifth, the referring court questions whether employment conditions within the meaning of Clause 4 of the framework agreement encompass conditions relating to pay and pension rights.
Petič, predložitveno sodi�če se spra�uje, ali pogoji zaposlitve v smislu določbe 4 okvirnega sporazuma zajemajo pogoje plačila in pravice do pokojnine.
It refers to the broad meaning of ‘pay’ in the context of Article 141 EC in relation to the principle of gender equality, and considers that if the clause in question were to be construed as being inapplicable to pay it would deprive fixedterm workers of protection against discrimination with regard to a number of essential matters covered by pay, which would be contrary to the objective of the framework agreement.
Glede �irokega pomena pojma plačila v okviru člena 141 ES v zvezi z načelom enakosti spolov predložitveno sodi�če meni, da bi se z razlago, ki izključuje plačilo iz področja uporabe zadevne določbe, delavcem, zaposlenim za določen čas, odvzelo za�čito pred diskriminacijo glede več bistvenih vidikov, povezanih s plačilom, kar bi bilo v nasprotju z zasledovanim ciljem okvirnega sporazuma.
Furthermore it takes the view that, having regard to Article 136 EC and the Community Charter of the Fundamental Social Rights of Workers adopted at the European Council’s meeting in Strasbourg on 9 December 1989 (in particular Article 7 of the Charter) — in conjunction with which Article 137 EC must be read —, Article 137(5) EC, which excludes pay from the scope of Article 137 EC, must be interpreted as being intended solely to preclude the European Community from having legislative competence to fix a Community minimum wage and that it does not therefore prevent the term ‘working conditions’ within the meaning of Article 137(1) EC from encompassing pay and pension matters.
Poleg tega meni, da je treba ob upo�tevanju člena 136 ES in Listine Skupnosti o temeljnih socialnih pravicah delavcev, sprejete med zasedanjem Evropskega sveta v Strasbourgu 9. decembra 1989 (zlasti njene točke 7), v povezavi s katerima je treba brati člen 137 ES, odstavek 5 tega člena, ki izključuje plače iz področja uporabe tega člena, razlagati tako, da je njegov cilj le izključiti zakonodajno pristojnost Evropske skupnosti za določitev minimalne skupnostne mezde in da torej ne nasprotuje vključitvi elementov plačila in pokojnine v pojem „delovni pogoji“ v smislu člena 137(1) ES.
In the light of these various unresolved issues, the Labour Court decided to stay the proceedings and to put the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling:
Zaradi teh različnih vpra�anj je Labour Court prekinilo odločanje in Sodi�ču v predhodno odločanje predložilo ta vpra�anja:
— the Rights Commissioner and the Labour Court have not been given express jurisdiction to do so under the domestic law of the Member State including the provisions of domestic law transposing the Directive,
— Rights Commissioner in Labour Court na podlagi nacionalnega prava zadevne države članice, vključno z določbami nacionalnega prava, s katerimi je bila prenesena Direktiva, za to nista izrecno poobla�čeni;
— Individuals can pursue alternative claims arising out of a failure by their employer to apply the Directive to their individual circumstances before the High Court and
— lahko posamezniki pri High Court vložijo druge zahteve, ki izhajajo iz dejstva, da njihov delodajalec ni uporabil direktive v njihovem konkretnem primeru, in ko
— Individuals can pursue alternative claims before an ordinary court of competent jurisdiction against the Member State seeking damages for loss suffered by them arising from the Member State’s failure to transpose the Directive on time?
— lahko posamezniki pred pristojnimi rednimi sodi�či zoper zadevno državo članico vložijo druge zahtevke za povračilo �kode, ki so jo utrpeli, ker ta država ni pravočasno prenesla direktive?
(a) Is Clause 4(1) of the framework agreement … unconditional and sufficiently precise in its terms as to be capable of being relied upon by individuals before their national courts?
(a) ali je določba 4, točka 1, okvirnega sporazuma […] brezpogojna in dovolj natančna, da se lahko nanjo sklicujejo posamezniki pred svojimi nacionalnimi sodi�či?
(b) Is Clause 5(1) of the framework agreement … unconditional and sufficiently precise in its terms as to be capable of being relied upon by individuals before their national courts?
(b) ali je določba 5, točka 1, okvirnega sporazuma […] brezpogojna in dovolj natančna, da se lahko nanjo sklicujejo posamezniki pred svojimi nacionalnimi sodi�či?
— on all previous occasions the contract had been renewed for shorter periods, and the employer requires the services of the employee for the extended period,
— je bila pogodba do tedaj vedno obnovljena za kraj�a obdobja in če delodajalec potrebuje storitve delavca za obdobje, ki je dalj�e od obdobja običajnega podalj�anja;
— the renewal for the extended period has the effect of circumventing the application to an individual of the full benefit of Clause 5 of the framework agreement when transposed into domestic law, and
— se s podalj�anjem pogodbe za to dalj�e obdobje prepreči posamezniku, da bi bil v celoti deležen ugodnosti uporabe določbe 5 okvirnega sporazuma po njenem prenosu v nacionalno pravo, in
— there are no objective reasons unrelated to the employee’s status as a fixedterm worker for such a renewal?
— ni objektivnih razlogov, ki niso povezani s statusom delavca kot delavca, zaposlenega za določen čas, ki bi upravičili tako obnovitev?
— the wording of the provision of domestic law does not expressly preclude such an interpretation, but,
— besedilo določbe nacionalnega prava izrecno ne izključuje take razlage, vendar
— a rule of domestic law governing the construction of statutes precludes such retrospective application unless there is a clear and unambiguous indication to the contrary?
— pravilo nacionalnega prava o razlagi zakonov prepoveduje tako retroaktivno uporabo, razen v primerih, ko je jasno in nedvoumno navedeno nasprotno?
By its first question, the referring court seeks, in essence, to establish whether, notwithstanding the absence of any express provision to that effect in the relevant national law, a national court or tribunal, such as the Labour Court or a Rights Commissioner, which is called upon to decide a case concerning an infringement of the legislation transposing Directive 1999/70 is required by Community law to hold that it also has jurisdiction to hear and determine claims based directly on that dir -ective itself, where such claims relate to a period after the deadline for transposing the directive concerned, but before the date of entry into force of the transposing legislation giving it jurisdiction to hear and determine claims based on that legislation.
S prvim vpra�anjem predložitveno sodi�če v bistvu sku�a ugotoviti, ali se mora kljub neobstoju izrecne določbe v tem smislu v veljavnem nacionalnem pravu tak�no nacionalno sodi�če, kot je predložitveno, ali Rights Commissioner, ki odloča o sporu, ki izhaja iz kr�itve zakona, s katerim je bila prenesena Direktiva 1999/70, izreči za pristojno na podlagi prava Skupnosti, da odloča o zahtevah, ki temeljijo na tej direktivi, čeprav se te zahteve nana�ajo na obdobje po poteku roka za prenos zadevne direktive, vendar pred začetkom veljavnosti zakona za prenos, s katerim je sodi�ču podeljena pristojnost za odločanje o zahtevah na podlagi tega zakona.
The referring court explains in that regard that the parties can bring the Member State concerned before the ordinary courts, either in its capacity as an employer or in order to obtain damages for loss arising from a failure to transpose Directive 1999/70 within the prescribed period.
V zvezi s tem predložitveno sodi�če pojasnjuje, da lahko pred rednimi sodi�či stranke ukrepajo proti zadevni državi članici bodisi kot proti delodajalcu bodisi zato, da bi pridobile od�kodnino za �kodo, ki izhaja iz neprenosa Direktive 1999/70 v predvidenem roku.
As a preliminary point, it should be noted, as it was by Ireland at the hearing, that neither Directive 1999/70 nor the framework agreement designates the national courts having jurisdiction to ensure that they are applied, nor do they define the detailed procedural rules governing judicial actions for safeguarding their application.
Uvodoma je treba poudariti, kot je to storila Irska na obravnavi, da niso niti v Direktivi 1999/70 niti v okvirnem sporazumu določena nacionalna sodi�ča, pristojna za zagotavljanje njune uporabe, in da prav tako niso določena postopkovna pravila za pravna sredstva, s katerimi se zagotavlja ta uporaba.
On the contrary, Clause 8(5) of the framework agreement refers to national law, collective agreements and practice as regards the prevention and settlement of disputes and grievances arising from the application of that agreement.
Nasprotno, določba 8, točka 5, okvirnega sporazuma napotuje na nacionalno zakonodajo, kolektivne pogodbe in običaje v zvezi s preprečevanjem in re�evanjem sporov in delovnih sporov, ki izhajajo iz uporabe tega sporazuma.
It must also be observed that the freedom to choose the ways and means of ensuring that a directive is implemented does not affect the obligation imposed on all Member States to which the directive is addressed to adopt all the measures necessary to ensure that the directive concerned is fully effective in accordance with the object- ive which it pursues (see Case 14/83 von Colson and Kamann [1984] ECR 1891, paragraph 15).
Poleg tega je treba opozoriti, da svoboda izbire načina in sredstev za zagotovitev izvajanja direktive ne vpliva na obveznost vsake države članice, na katero je direktiva naslovljena, da sprejme vse ukrepe, ki so potrebni za zagotovitev polnega učinka direktive v skladu z njenim ciljem (glej sodbo z dne 10. aprila 1984 v zadevi Von Colson in Kamann, 14/83, Recueil, str. 1891, točka 15).
The Member States’ obligation arising from a directive to achieve the result envisaged by that directive and their duty under Article 10 EC to take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular, to ensure the fulfilment of that obligation is binding on all the authorities of the Member States including, for matters within their jurisdiction, the courts (von Colson and Kamann, paragraph 26).
Obveznost držav članic, ki izhaja iz direktive, da dosežejo rezultat, ki ga ta določa, in dolžnost na podlagi člena 10 ES, da sprejmejo vse ustrezne ukrepe, splo�ne ali posebne, da bi zagotovile izpolnjevanje te obveznosti, velja za vse organe teh držav članic, vključno s sodnimi organi v okviru njihovih pristojnosti (zgoraj navedena sodba Von Colson in Kamann, točka 26).
It is the responsibility of the national courts in particular to provide the legal protection which individuals derive from the rules of Community law and to ensure that those rules are fully effective (Joined Cases C-397/01 to C-403/01 Pfeiffer and Others [2004] ECR I-8835, paragraph 111).
V bistvu so zlasti nacionalna sodi�ča tista, ki morajo zagotoviti pravno varstvo, ki za zadevne osebe izhaja iz določb prava Skupnosti, in njihov polni učinek (sodba z dne 5. oktobra 2004 v združenih zadevah Pfeiffer in drugi, od C-397/01 do C-403/01, ZOdl., str. I-8835, točka 111).
In that regard, it is important to note that the principle of effective judicial protection is a general principle of Community law (see, to that effect, Case C-432/05 Unibet [2007] ECR I-2271, paragraph 37 and the caselaw cited).
V zvezi s tem je treba opozoriti, da je načelo učinkovitega sodnega varstva splo�no načelo prava Skupnosti (glej v tem smislu sodbo z dne 13. marca 2007 v zadevi Unibet, C-432/05, ZOdl., str. I-2271, točka 37 in navedena sodna praksa).
The Court has consistently held that, in the absence of Community rules governing the matter, it is for the domestic legal system of each Member State to designate the courts and tribunals having jurisdiction and to lay down the detailed procedural rules governing actions for safeguarding rights which individuals derive from Community
Če na področju ni Skupnostne ureditve, se v skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso v nacionalnem pravnem redu vsake države članice določi pristojna sodi�ča in postopkovna pravila za pravna sredstva, ki zagotavljajo varovanje pravic, ki jih posameznikom daje pravo Skupnosti (glej zlasti sodbo z dne 16. decembra 1976 v zadevi
On that basis, as is apparent from well-established caselaw, the detailed procedural rules governing actions for safeguarding an individual’s rights under Community law must be no less favourable than those governing similar domestic actions (principle of equivalence) and must not render practically impossible or excessively difficult the exercise of rights conferred by Community law (principle of effectiveness) (see, in particular, Rewe-Zentralfinanz and Rewe-Zentral, paragraph 5; Comet, paragraphs 13 to 16; Peterbroeck, paragraph 12; Unibet, paragraph 43; and van der Weerd and Others, paragraph 28).
Kot izhaja iz ustaljene sodne prakse, v zvezi s tem postopkovna pravila za pravna sredstva, katerih namen je varstvo pravic, ki jih imajo posamezniki na podlagi prava Skupnosti, ne smejo biti manj ugodna od tistih, ki veljajo za podobna nacionalna pravna sredstva (načelo enakovrednosti), in ne smejo praktično onemogočiti oziroma čezmerno otežiti uveljavljanja pravic, ki jih daje pravni red Skupnosti (načelo učinko -vitosti) (glej zlasti zgoraj navedene sodbe Rewe-Zentralfinanz in Rewe-Zentral, točka 5; Comet, točke od 13 do 16; Peterbroeck, točka 12; Unibet, točka 43, ter van der Weerd in drugi, točka 28).
Those requirements of equivalence and effectiveness, which embody the general obligation on the Member States to ensure judicial protection of an individual’s rights under Community law, apply equally to the designation of the courts and tribunals having jurisdiction to hear and determine actions based on Community law.
Te zahteve po enakovrednosti in učinkovitosti, ki izražajo splo�no obveznost držav članic, da zagotovijo sodno varstvo pravic, ki jih imajo posamezniki na podlagi prava Skupnosti, veljajo tudi za določitev sodi�č, pristojnih za odločanje o tožbah, ki temeljijo na tem pravu.
A failure to comply with those requirements at Community level is — just like a failure to comply with them as regards the definition of detailed procedural rules — liable to undermine the principle of effective judicial protection.
Nespo�tovanje navedenih zahtev na tej ravni, kot tudi njihovo nespo�tovanje na ravni določitve postopkovnih pravil, lahko namreč kr�i načelo učinkovitega sodnega varstva.
It is in the light of those considerations that the referring court’s first question must be answered.
Na prvo vpra�anje predložitvenega sodi�ča je treba odgovoriti ob upo�tevanju teh preudarkov.
Notwithstanding formal distinctions as to their legal basis, both claims, as the Advocate General noted at point 58 of her Opinion, seek the protection of the same rights deriving from Community law, namely Directive 1999/70 and the framework agreement.
Kljub formalno različnim pravnim podlagam se z zahtevama namreč sku�a doseči, kot je poudarila generalna pravobranilka v točki 58 sklepnih predlogov, varstvo istih pravic, ki izhajajo iz prava Skupnosti, in sicer iz Direktive 1999/70 in okvirnega sporazuma.
In those circumstances, where the national legislature has chosen to confer on specialised courts jurisdiction to hear and determine actions based on the legislation transposing Directive 1999/70, the obligation which would be placed on individuals in the situation of the complainants — who sought to bring a claim based on an infringement of that legislation before such a specialised court — to bring at the same time a separate action before an ordinary court to assert the rights which they can derive directly from that directive in respect of the period between the deadline for transposing it and the date on which the transposing legislation entered into force, would be contrary to the principle of effectiveness if — which is for the referring court to ascertain — it would result in procedural disadvantages for those individuals, in terms, inter alia, of cost, duration and the rules of representation, such as to render excessively difficult the exercise of rights deriving from that directive.
V teh okoli�činah, ko se je nacionalni zakonodajalec odločil podeliti specializiranim sodi�čem pristojnost za odločanje o zahtevah, ki temeljijo na zakonu, s katerim je bila prenesena Direktiva 1999/70, bi bila obveznost posameznikov v položaju pritožnikov iz postopka v glavni stvari, ki so hoteli vložiti zahtevo zaradi kr�itve navedenega zakona pri tak�nem specializiranem sodi�ču, da morajo vzporedno pri rednem sodi�ču vložiti ločeno zahtevo za uveljavitev pravic, ki jih imajo neposredno na podlagi te direktive v zvezi z obdobjem po poteku roka za njen prenos in pred začetkom veljavnosti zakona, s katerim je bila prenesena, v nasprotju z načelom učinkovitosti, če bi to tem posameznikom povzročilo postopkovne težave, in sicer v smislu stro�kov, trajanja in pravil o zastopanju tako, da bi bilo izvr�evanje pravic na podlagi navedene direktive pretežko, kar pa mora presoditi predložitveno sodi�če.
IMPACT prevent individuals from bringing a single action, based partly on national law and partly on Community law, before an ordinary court.
IMPACT preprečeno posameznikom, da vložijo pri rednem sodi�ču eno pravno sredstvo, ki temelji delno na nacionalnem pravu in delno na pravu Skupnosti.