natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
According to the Kingdom of Belgium, the Court of First Instance did not explain why the abovementioned rule, included by the Commission in its Guidelines, should be read in the light of the rule laid down in the Guidelines that flatrate corrections should be considered when the Commission finds a failure adequately to effect any control which is explicitly required by a regulation, or implicitly required in order to respect an explicit rule.
Kraljevina Belgija meni, da Sodi�če prve stopnje ni obrazložilo, zakaj je zgoraj navedeno pravilo, ki ga je Komisija vključila v svoje Smernice, treba razumeti ob upo�tevanju pravila, vsebovanega v Smernicah, v skladu s katerim je finančne popravke treba določiti, ko Komisija ugotovi, da ukrep nadzora, ki ga uredba izrecno zahteva ali ki je posredno potreben, da bi bilo spo�tovano izrecno pravilo, ni bil izveden.
In that regard, it should be pointed out that the Court of First Instance justified a joint reading of the provisions of the Guidelines on the basis in particular of the rules concerning the burden of proof in disputes connected with the clearance of EAGGF accounts.
V zvezi s tem je treba ugotoviti, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje utemeljilo povezano razlago določb Smernic, s tem da se je oprlo zlasti na pravila glede dokaznega bremena v sporih glede potrditev obračuna EKUJS.
Such justification was adequate.
Taka obrazložitev pa zadostuje.
Despite the scope prima facie of the rule set out in paragraph 124 of the present judgment, a flatrate correction may be applied even where deficiencies are found in the application of implicit rules, provided compliance with those implicit rules is required in order to comply with an explicit rule (see, as regards a flatrate correction in conjunction with infringement of implicit obligations, Case C-157/00 Greece v Commission, paragraphs 28 and 37).
Kljub prima facie vsebini pravila, navedenega v točki 124 te sodbe, je namreč pav�alni popravek mogoče uporabiti, tudi če je ugotovljeno, da posredna pravila niso bila uporabljena, če je upo�tevanje posrednih pravil potrebno, da bi bilo upo�tevano izrecno pravilo (glede pav�alnega popravka v povezavi s kr�itvijo posrednih obveznosti glej zgoraj navedeno sodbo z dne 9. januarja 2003 v zadevi Grčija proti Komisiji, točke od 28 do 37).
Next, as regards the alleged incompatibility of the implicit obligations in question with Community caselaw, it is clear that, in the light of what was stated in paragraph 84 of this judgment, there was no need for the Court of First Instance to examine the alleged contradiction.
Dalje, glede domnevne nezdružljivosti zadevnih posrednih obveznosti s sodno prakso Skupnosti je ob upo�tevanju tega, kar je bilo poudarjeno v točki 84 te sodbe, jasno, da Sodi�ču prve stopnje ni bilo treba analizirati domnevnega protislovja.
So far as paragraph 51 of the judgment under appeal is concerned, it should be noted that that paragraph consisted of a summary of the claims made by the Kingdom of Belgium, which argued that the Commission had required it, where there were anomalies, either to conduct on-the-spot checks or reduce the area for which aid would be granted, or conduct other administrative checks.
Glede točke 51 izpodbijane sodbe je treba opozoriti, da je ta vsebovala navedbo trditev Kraljevine Belgije, da ji je Komisija zaradi obstoja nepravilnosti naložila, naj bodisi opravi nadzore na kraju samem, bodisi zmanj�a povr�ino, bodisi opravi druge upravne nadzore.
As regards ’other administrative checks’, it should be pointed out that, in point B.7.1.1 of the summary report, the Commission had already criticised that Member State for the absence of additional checks, that is to say, in this case, the absence of other checks, including administrative checks, in connection with aid applications where the area differences exceeded 5%.
Glede „drugih upravnih nadzorov“ je torej treba ugotoviti, da je Komisija v točki B.7.1 zbirnega poročila tej državi članici že očitala, da ni izvedla dodatnih preiskav, to je, da ni izvedla drugih nadzorov, vključno z upravnimi, glede zahtevkov za pomoč, pri katerih so razkoraki glede povr�in presegali 5 %.
It follows from this that the Court of First Instance did not go further than the complaints contained in the contested decision and did not therefore have to provide any specific reasoning in that regard.
Iz tega izhaja, da Sodi�če prve stopnje ni preseglo očitkov iz sporne odločbe in mu torej v zvezi s tem ni bilo treba oblikovati posebne obrazložitve.
Lastly, as regards paragraphs 60 and 70 of the judgment under appeal, it must be concluded that the two separate findings made by the Court of First Instance are not at all contradictory.
Nazadnje, glede točk 60 in 70 izpodbijane sodbe je treba ugotoviti, da različni ugotovitvi Sodi�ča prve stopnje nikakor nista protislovni.
In view of the foregoing, the third ground of appeal must be rejected as being unfounded.
Ob upo�tevanju zgoraj navedenega je treba tretji pritožbeni razlog zavrniti kot neutemeljen.
D — Fourth ground of appeal: infringement of the principle of proportionality
D – Četrti pritožbeni razlog: kršitev načela sorazmernosti
According to the extrapolation method submitted to the Court by that Member State, the loss actually sustained by the EAGGF as a result of the alleged irregularities was EUR 1 079 814 or at most EUR 1 491 085.
V skladu z metodo ekstrapolacije, ki jo je ta država članica predstavila pred Sodi�čem prve stopnje, je �koda, ki jo je EKUJS dejansko utrpel zaradi domnevnih nepravilnosti, zna�ala 1.079.814 EUR ali največ 1.491.085 EUR.
The Belgian Government also contends that its evaluation of the loss actually sustained by the EAGGF was wrongly rejected by the Court of First Instance solely on the ground that it failed to take into account the recovery of undue payments and files in respect of which data had been entered late.
Belgijska vlada poleg tega trdi, da naj bi Sodi�če prve stopnje njeno oceno �kode, ki naj bi jo EKUJS dejansko imel, napačno zavrnila zgolj zato, ker ni upo�tevala izterjave neupravičenih izplačil in primerov, ki so bili predmet prepoznega vnosa.
However, even without those two factors, that Member State argues that its extrapolations were enough to show that the flatrate financial correction applied by the Commission was in any event disproportionate.
Ta država članica trdi, da so tudi ob neobstoju teh dveh dejavnikov njene ekstrapolacije v vsakem primeru dokazovale nesorazmernost pav�alnega finančnega popravka, ki ga je Komisija uporabila.
The Commission maintains that the Belgian authorities should have taken into account the recovery of undue payments in their initial extrapolation, something they failed to do.
Komisija trdi, da bi belgijski organi pri začetni ekstrapolaciji morali upo�tevati izterjave neupravičenih izplačil, česar pa niso storili.
In reality, they are trying to put forward a fresh extrapolation by arguing at the appeal stage a maximum potential loss for the EAGGF now amounting to EUR 3 500 000.
V resnici so posku�ali predstaviti novo ekstrapolacijo, s tem da so v fazi pritožbe zatrjevali, da je maksimalni znesek potencialne �kode za EKUJS zdaj 3.500.000 EUR.
The Court has consistently held that, although it is for the Commission to prove that Community rules have been infringed, once it has established such an infringement it is for the Member State to demonstrate, if appropriate, that the Commission made an error as to the financial consequences to be attached to that infringement (Case C-5/03 Greece v Commission, paragraph 38, and caselaw cited therein).
Čeprav mora v skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso Komisija dokazati kr�itev pravil Skupnosti, mora država članica, potem ko je ta kr�itev ugotovljena, dokazati, da je Komisija storila napako glede finančnih posledic kr�itve (zgoraj navedena sodba z dne 7. julija 2005 v zadevi Grčija proti Komisiji, točka 38 in navedena sodna praksa).
As regards the type of correction applied, it should be noted, in the light of the Guidelines, that a flatrate correction may be considered by the Commission where it is not possible to determine precisely the losses suffered by the Community (see Case C-346/00 United Kingdom v Commission [2003] ECR I-9293, paragraph 53).
Glede vrste uporabljenega popravka je treba ob upo�tevanju Smernic opozoriti, da Komisija, če ni mogoče natančno oceniti izgub, ki jih je utrpela Skupnost, lahko določi pav�alni popravek (glej sodbo z dne 18. septembra 2003 v zadevi Združeno kraljestvo proti Komisiji, C-346/00, Recueil, str. I-9293, točka 53).
In the present case, that was precisely so and the correction rate of 2% applied by the Commission in the contested decision is the lowest of the applicable rates (see, to that effect, United Kingdom v Commission, paragraph 56).
V obravnavani zadevi je �lo za ravno tak primer, stopnja popravka 2 %, ki jo je uporabila Komisija v sporni odločbi, pa je najnižja uporabljiva stopnja (v tem smislu glej zgoraj navedeno sodbo Združeno kraljestvo proti Komisiji, točka 56).
In that regard, where, instead of disallowing all the expenditure affected by the infringement, the Commission has endeavoured to establish rules for treating
Če si je v zvezi s tem Komisija, namesto da bi zavrnila vse odhodke, ki jih zadeva kr�itev, prizadevala vzpostaviti pravila za različno obravnavanje kr�itev glede na
As regards the 2% flatrate correction applied in the contested decision, the Kingdom of Belgium submitted an extrapolation which sought to show that the maximum loss sustained by the EAGGF was less than the amount resulting from the flatrate correction applied by the Commission.
Kraljevina Belgija je glede pav�alnega popravka 2 %, ki je bil uporabljen v sporni odločbi, predstavila ekstrapolacijo, ki naj bi dokazala, da je maksimalna �koda, ki naj bi jo utrpel EKUJS, nižja od zneska, ki izhaja iz pav�alnega popravka, ki ga je uporabila Komisija.
It should be pointed out that, in the event of deficiencies in the checks, assessment of the loss to which the EAGGF may have been exposed as a result must take into account in particular recovery of area aid payments unduly paid to farmers.
Ugotoviti je treba, da je ob pomanjkljivosti nadzorov treba pri oceni �kode, ki naj bi jo EKUJS zaradi teh nadzorov utrpel, upo�tevati zlasti izterjave izplačil pomoči za povr�ino, ki so jih pridelovalci neupravičeno prejeli.
The Court of First Instance was therefore right to find that the Kingdom of Belgium had not shown that the maximum loss incurred by the EAGGF could not be greater than EUR 1 491 085.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je tako pravilno ugotovilo, da Kraljevina Belgija ni dokazala, da maksimalna �koda, ki jo je utrpel EKUJS, ne more biti vi�ja od zneska 1.491.085 EUR.
In that regard, contrary to what that Member State maintains, if recovery of undue payments is not taken into account, the extrapolation submitted could not have probative value for purposes of demonstrating that the financial correction in question was disproportionate.
V zvezi s tem in v nasprotju trditvami ta država članica, če izterjave neupravičenih izplačil niso bile upo�tevane, predstavljena ekstrapolacija ne more dokazati nesorazmernosti zadevnega finančnega popravka.
Moreover, by submitting in particular, at the appeal stage, a second extrapolation of the maximum loss to which the EAGGF was exposed as a result of the deficiencies of its authorities in the matter of checks, the Kingdom of Belgium thereby confirms the relative probative value of its initial extrapolations rejected by the Court of First Instance.
Poleg tega Kraljevina Belgija, s tem da se v fazi pritožbe sklicuje na drugo ekstrapolacijo maksimalne �kode, ki naj bi jo EKUJS utrpel zaradi pomanjkljivosti nadzorov, ki so jih izvedli njeni organi, potrjuje relativno dokazno vrednost njenih začetnih ekstrapolacij, ki jih je Sodi�če prve stopnje zavrnilo.
It follows in that connection that it cannot be alleged that the Court of First Instance infringed the principle of proportionality.
Iz tega sledi, da Sodi�ču prve stopnje v zvezi s tem ni mogoče očitati kr�itve načela sorazmernosti.
In paragraph 122 of its appeal, the Kingdom of Belgium indeed refers to paragraph 93 of the judgment under appeal, in which the Court of First Instance considered that since the flatrate correction was set at 2%, the lowest level provided for by the Guidelines, and those Guidelines were not disputed, that correction could not, by definition, have infringed the principle of proportionality.
Kraljevina Belgija se v točki 122 pritožbe res sklicuje na točko 93 izpodbijane sodbe, v kateri je Sodi�če prve stopnje menilo, da ker je bil pav�alni popravek določen po najnižji stopnji, ki jo določajo Smernice, to je v vi�ini 2 %, in ker te smernice niso bile izpodbijane, s tem popravkom načelo sorazmernosti po definiciji ne bi moglo biti kr�eno.
However, that Member State did not attempt to submit specific arguments in that regard to challenge that finding of the Court of First Instance.
V zvezi s tem ta država članica kljub temu ni navedla posebne argumentacije, s katero bi izpodbila to ugotovitev Sodi�ča prve stopnje.
In view of the foregoing, the fourth ground of appeal must be rejected.
Na podlagi navedenega je treba četrti pritožbeni razlog zavrniti.
E — Fifth ground of appeal: error of law concerning the absence of unlimited jurisdiction in respect of the amounts of financial corrections
E – Peti pritožbeni razlog: nepravilna uporaba prava glede neobstoja neomejene pristojnosti glede zneskov finančnih popravkov
The Kingdom of Belgium considers that the Court of First Instance committed an error of law in rejecting as inadmissible its claim that the Court should, under its unlimited jurisdiction, reduce the amount of the financial correction imposed by the Commission.
Kraljevina Belgija meni, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje napačno uporabilo pravo, ker je kot nedopustnega zavrglo njen predlog, da na podlagi svoje neomejene pristojnosti zniža znesek finančnega popravka, ki ga je določila Komisija.
That Member State maintains in that regard that Article 229 EC, which provides that regulations adopted jointly by the European Parliament and the Council, and by the Council, may give the Court of Justice unlimited jurisdiction with regard to the penalties provided for in such regulations does not apply.
Ta država članica v zvezi s tem trdi, da ni mogoče uporabiti člena 229 ES, s katerim je določeno, da se z uredbami, ki jih sprejemata Evropski parlament in Svet skupaj in ki jih sprejema Svet sam, lahko Sodi�ču dodeli neomejena pristojnost glede kazni, predvidenih v teh uredbah.
The financial penalties in question are laid down not in a regulation but in Commission guidelines.
Zadevne finančne kazni so bile namreč določene s Smernicami Komisije, ne pa z uredbo.
However, relying on Case C-449/99 P EIB v Hautem [2001] ECR I-6733, the Belgian Government considers that the Community Courts could be recognised as automatically having jurisdiction.
Belgijska vlada kljub temu, ko se opira na sodbo z dne 2. oktobra 2001 v zadevi EIB proti Hautemu (C-449/99 P, Recueil, str. I-6733), meni, da je sodi�čem Skupnosti neomejeno pristojnost mogoče priznati ex nihilo.
The Commission recalls the principle that the EAGGF can finance only expenditure incurred in accordance with Community rules.
Komisija opozarja na načelo, v skladu s katerim EKUJS lahko prevzame zgolj odhodke, ki so bili izvedeni v skladu s pravili Skupnosti.
It is therefore required to refuse to finance any irregular expenditure and, if it is impossible to determine the exact amount of expenditure affected by an irregularity, it may go so far as to refuse to finance all the expenditure.
Komisija naj bi torej bila dolžna zavrniti financiranje vseh nepravilnih odhodkov, ker pa je nemogoče ugotoviti natančen znesek odhodkov, na katere je nepravilnost vplivala, je lahko zavrnila financiranje vseh odhodkov.
In this latter case, and for the sake of ensuring proportionality, the system of flatrate corrections enables situations in which there is an irregularity to be differentiated through the application of financial corrections calculated according to the risk of loss to which the non-compliance by the Member State with the Community rules has exposed the budget.
V slednjem primeru in zaradi sorazmernosti naj bi sistem pav�alnih popravkov z uporabo finančnih popravkov, ki so določeni glede na nevarnost izgube, kateri je bil zaradi nespo�tovanja pravil Skupnosti s strani države članice izpostavljen proračun, omogočal razlikovanje med položaji, v katerih je pri�lo do nepravilnosti.
This therefore precludes it being regarded as a system of penalties for irregular payments.
To torej izključuje, da bi ga bilo mogoče �teti za sistem kazni za nepravilna izplačila.
As regards EIB v Hautem, the Commission is of the view that the Court of Justice accepted that it had unlimited jurisdiction in that case only because of the particu- lar nature of the dispute in question, the court having jurisdiction over the contract generally having unlimited jurisdiction.
Komisija glede zgoraj navedene sodbe EIB proti Hautem meni, da je Sodi�če v tej zadevi priznalo neomejeno pristojnost zgolj zaradi posebnosti zadevnega spora, za katerega ima sodi�če, ki je pristojno za pogodbo, načeloma neomejeno pristojnost.
As the clearance of EAGGF accounts does not involve penalties, cases relating to it do not have any particular features justifying such acceptance.
Ker pa potrditev obračuna EKUJS ne vključuje kazni, spor, ki se nana�a na potrditev, nima posebnosti, ki bi upravičevale tako priznanje.
In respect of the EAGGF, as the Court of First Instance rightly held, there is no provision conferring unlimited jurisdiction on the Community Courts as provided for under Article 229 EC.
Ugotoviti je treba, kot je pravilno opozorilo Sodi�če prve stopnje, da na področju z EKUJS nobena določba sodi�čem Skupnosti ne daje neomejene pristojnosti, kot določa člen 229 ES.
In those circumstances, the Belgian Government’s argument that the Community Courts should be recognised as having unlimited jurisdiction in respect of the amounts of financial corrections imposed by the Commission in connection with the procedure for the clearance of EAGGF accounts is not supported by the contention that those corrections are in the nature of a penalty.
V teh okoli�činah se utemeljitev belgijske vlade, da imajo sodi�ča Skupnosti glede zneskov finančnih popravkov, ki jih je določila Komisija v okviru postopka potrditve obračuna EKUJS, neomejeno pristojnost, ne more opirati na trditev, da so kazenske narave.
Hence, the fifth ground of appeal must be rejected as being unfounded.
Peti pritožbeni razlog je zato treba zavrniti kot neutemeljen.
In view of all the foregoing, the appeal must be dismissed.
Glede na navedeno je treba pritožbo zavrniti.
Under the first subparagraph of Article 69(3) of the Rules of Procedure, applicable in appeal proceedings under Article 118 of those Rules, the Court may order that the costs should be shared or that the parties are to bear their own costs.
V skladu s členom 69(3), prvi pododstavek, Poslovnika, ki se uporablja za pritožbeni postopek na podlagi člena 118 Poslovnika, lahko Sodi�če odloči, da se stro�ki delijo ali da vsaka stranka nosi svoje stro�ke, če vsaka stranka uspe samo deloma.
In the present case, each party must be ordered to bear its own costs.
V obravnavanem primeru je treba odločiti, da vsaka stranka nosi svoje stro�ke.
On those grounds, the Court (Second Chamber) hereby
Iz teh razlogov je Sodi�če (drugi senat) razsodilo:
Orders the Kingdom of Belgium and the Commission of the European Communities to bear their own costs.
Kraljevina Belgija in Komisija Evropskih skupnosti nosita svoje stroške.
Joined Cases C-55/07 and C-56/07
Združeni zadevi C-55/07 in C-56/07
(References for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Bozen (Italy))
(Predloga za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, ki ju je vložilo Landesgericht Bozen (Italija))
(Directive 97/81/EC — Equal treatment of parttime and fulltime workers — Discrimination — Administrative obstacle limiting opportunities for parttime work)
„Direktiva 97/81/ES – Enako obravnavanje delavcev, ki delajo s kraj�im delovnim časom, in delavcev, ki delajo s polnim delovnim časom – Diskriminacija – Administrativna ovira, ki omejuje možnosti dela s kraj�im delovnim časom“
Social policy — Access to employment and working conditions — Equal treatment — Directive 97/81 concerning the Framework agreement on parttime work
Socialna politika – Dostop do zaposlitve in delovnih pogojev – Enako obravnavanje – Direktiva 97/81 o okvirnem sporazumu o delu s krajšim delovnim časom
(Council Directive 97/81, Annex, Clause 5(1)(a))
(Direktiva Sveta št. 97/81, priloga, določba 5(1)(a))
SUMMARY — JOINED CASES C-55/07 AND C-56/07
POVZETEK – ZDRUŽENI ZADEVI C-55/07 IN C-56/07
Clause 5(1)(a) of the Framework Agreement on parttime work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC annexed to Direct- ive 97/81 concerning that framework agreement must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which requires that copies of parttime employment contracts be sent to the authorities within 30 days of their signature.
Določbo 5(1)(a) okvirnega sporazuma o delu s kraj�im delovnim časom, sklenjenim med UNICE, CEEP in ETUC, priloženega k Direktivi 97/81/ES o navedenem okvirnem sporazumu, je treba razlagati tako, da nasprotuje nacionalni ureditvi, ki zahteva, da se kopije pogodb o zaposlitvi s kraj�im delovnim časom po�ljejo upravnim organom v tridesetih dneh od sklenitve navedenih pogodb.
In addition, because of the cost and the associated penalties, the obligation to notify the authorities of parttime contracts risks particularly affecting small and mediumsized undertakings which, not having the same resources as larger undertakings, may consequently be inclined to avoid that form of organisation of work, namely parttime work, which it is the aim of Directive 97/81 to promote.
Poleg tega zaradi stro�kov in kazni, ki so s tem povezane, obveznost po�iljanja pogodb o zaposlitvi s kraj�im delovnim časom upravnim organom pomeni nevarnost zlasti za majhna in srednja podjetja, ki jih lahko odvrne od načina organiziranja zaposlitve s kraj�im delovnim časom, ki pa jo spodbuja Direktiva 97/81, saj ne razpolagajo s tak�nimi sredstvi kot velika podjetja.
The combination of that administrative formality and a system of penalties which provides for imposition of a fine in respect of each employment contract in question and in respect of each day of late notification of the contract, with no ceiling to limit the total amount of the fine, acts to discourage employers from making use of parttime work.
Povezava te administrativne formalnosti in sistema kazni, ki določa kazen za vsako pogodbo o zaposlitvi in za vsak dan zamude pri po�iljanju te pogodbe, brez kakr�ne koli zgornje meje celotnega zneska globe namreč prispeva k odvračanju delodajalcev od tega, da zaposlujejo s kraj�im delovnim časom.
(see paras 27-30, operative part)
(Glej točke od 27 do 30 in izrek.)
MICHAELER AND OTHERS
MICHAELER IN DRUGI
OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERALRUIZ-JARABO COLOMER delivered on 24 January 2008 1
SKLEPNI PREDLOGI GENERALNEGA PRAVOBRANILCADÁMASA RUIZ-JARABOJA COLOMERJA, predstavljeni 24. januarja 2008 1
I — Introduction employers in relation to parttime employment contracts.
I – Uvod naložene v okviru pogodb o zaposlitvi s kraj�im delovnim časom.
Consequently, this case provides the Court with the opportunity to determine the scope of the protection afforded by Directive 97/81 and to define its relationship with the general principle of nondiscrimination and with Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions. 3
Ta zadeva torej daje Sodi�ču priložnost, da opredeli področje uporabe za�čite, ki jo ponuja Direktiva 97/81, ter pojasni njen odnos s splo�nim načelom prepovedi diskriminacije na eni strani in Direktivo Sveta 76/207/EGS z dne 9. februarja 1976 o izvr�evanju načela enakega obravnavanja mo�kih in žensk v zvezi z dostopom do zaposlitve, poklicnega usposabljanja in napredovanja ter delovnih pogojev 3.