natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Whether the protection against dismissal laid down in Article 10 of Directive 92/85 extends to a worker in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings must be determined in the light of the objectives pursued by that directive and, in particular, Article 10 thereof.
Glede na cilje Direktive 92/85 in natančneje glede na člen 10 je treba določiti, ali se varstvo zoper odpust iz te določbe raz�iri na delavko v okoli�činah, kot so te v postopku v glavni stvari.
It is apparent, both from the wording of Article 10 of Directive 92/85 and from the primary objective pursued by that directive, which is recalled at paragraph 31 of the present judgment, that to benefit from the protection against dismissal granted by that article the pregnancy in question must have begun.
Vendar pa tako iz člena 10 Direktive 92/85 kot tudi iz njenega glavnega namena, ki je povzet v točki 31 te sodbe, izhaja, da je pogoj za varstvo pred odpustom, ki ga zagotavlja ta člen, dejstvo, da se je nosečnost že začela.
In that regard, it should be pointed out that, although, as the Austrian Government observed, artificial fertilisation and viable cells treatment is a very sensitive social issue in many Member States, marked by their multiple traditions and value systems, the Court is not called upon, by the present order for reference, to broach questions of a medical or ethical nature, but must restrict itself to a legal interpretation of the relevant provisions of Directive 92/85 taking account of the wording, the broad logic and the objectives of that directive.
Zato je treba navesti, da čeprav je res, da je avstrijska vlada navedla, da je poseg z umetno oploditvijo in razvojnimi celicami zelo občutljiva tema v mnogih državah članicah, ki jo zaznamujejo mnoge tradicije in sistemi vrednot, Sodi�če v primeru te predložitvene odločbe ne more presojati medicinskih ali etičnih vpra�anj, ampak mora podati zgolj pravno razlago upo�tevnih določb Direktive 92/85 glede na njeno besedilo in sistematiko.
It is apparent from the 15th recital in the preamble to Directive 92/85 that the objective of the prohibition of dismissal provided for in Article 10 of that directive is to avoid the risk of a dismissal, for reasons linked to the pregnancy, having harmful effects on the physical and mental state of pregnant workers.
V petnajsti uvodni izjavi Direktive 92/85 je določeno, da je namen prepovedi odpusta, ki je določena v členu 10 te direktive, preprečiti, da tveganje odpusta iz razlogov, povezanih z njihovim stanjem, �kodljivo vpliva na fizično in psihično stanje nosečih delavk.
In those circumstances, it is clear, as has moreover been pointed out by the Austrian Government, that it is the earliest possible date in a pregnancy which must be chosen to ensure the safety and protection of pregnant workers.
V teh okoli�činah je očitno, kot je tudi zatrjevala avstrijska vlada, da je treba za varnost in varstvo nosečih delavk upo�tevati najzgodnje�i datum obstoja nosečnosti.
However, even allowing, in regard to in vitro fertilisation, that the date is that of the transfer of the fertilised ova into the woman’s uterus, it cannot be accepted, for reasons connected with the principle of legal certainty, that the protection established by Article 10 of Directive 92/85 may be extended to a worker when, on the date she was given notice of her dismissal, the in vitro fertilised ova had not yet been transferred into her uterus.
Vendar tudi če predpostavimo, da se pri oploditvi in vitro upo�teva datum prenosa oplojenih jajčec v maternico ženske, zaradi razlogov pravne varnosti ne moremo sprejeti, da se varstvo, ki ga določa člen 10 Direktive 92/85, raz�iri na delavko, kadar na dan, ko je bila odpu�čena, �e ni pri�lo do prenosa jajčec, oplojenih in vitro, v maternico te ženske.
Thus, as is apparent from the observations submitted to the Court, and from points 43 to 45 of the Opinion of the Advocate General, before their transfer into the uterus of the woman concerned, those ova may, in certain Member States, be kept for an indeterminate period. The national legislation in question in the main proceedings provides, in that regard, that the fertilised ova may be kept for a maximum period of 10 years.
Kot namreč izhaja iz stali�č, predloženih Sodi�ču, in iz točk od 43 do 45 sklepnih predlogov generalnega pravobranilca, je v določenih državah članicah mogoče ta jajčeca pred prenosom v maternico zadevne ženske shraniti za kraj�e ali dalj�e obdobje in glede tega nacionalna zakonodaja v postopku v glavni stvari predvidi možnost ohranjanja oplojenih jajčec za največ deset let.
Therefore, applying the protection against dismissal laid down in Article 10 of Directive 92/85 in favour of a female worker before the transfer of the fertilised ova could have the effect of granting the benefit of that protection even where that transfer is postponed, for whatever reason, for a number of years or even where such transfer is definitively abandoned, the in vitro fertilisation having been carried out merely by way of precaution.
Tako bi lahko torej uporaba varstva delavke pred odpustom, določenega v členu 10 Direktive 92/85, pred prenosom oplojenih jajčec povzročila priznanje ugodnosti tega varstva, tudi kadar se ta prenos zamakne iz različnih razlogov za nekaj let ali kadar se je prenosu dokončno odreklo, ker je bila oploditev in vitro opravljena zgolj kot previdnostni ukrep.
In the proceedings before the Court, the Greek and Italian Governments and the Commission have suggested that, while a worker’s protection against dismissal in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings cannot be inferred from Directive 92/85, such a worker could possibly rely on the protection against discrimination on grounds of sex granted by Directive 76/207.
V postopku pred Sodi�čem so gr�ka in italijanska vlada ter Komisija predlagale, da čeprav iz Direktive 92/85 ni mogoče sklepati o varstvu pred odpustom delavke v položaju, kot je ta v postopku v glavni stvari, bi se taka delavka lahko morebiti sklicevala na varstvo pred diskriminacijo na podlagi spola, ki ga določa Direktiva 76/207.
In that regard, it should be recalled that Article 2(1) of Directive 76/207 states that ‘… the principle of equal treatment shall mean that there shall be no discrimination whatsoever on grounds of sex either directly or indirectly by reference in particular to marital or family status’.
Glede tega je treba spomniti, da člen 2(1) Direktive 76/207 natančno določa, da „[…] načelo enakega obravnavanja pomeni, da ne sme biti nobene diskriminacije na podlagi spola, bodisi posredne ali neposredne, �e zlasti ne glede na zakonski ali družinski status“.
Article 5(1) of that same directive provides that ‘[a]pplication of the principle of equal treatment with regard to working conditions, including the conditions governing dismissal, means that men and women shall be guaranteed the same conditions without discrimination on grounds of sex’.
Člen 5(1) te direktive določa, da „[u]poraba načela enakega obravnavanja v zvezi z delovnimi pogoji, vključno s pogoji, ki uravnavajo odpu�čanje, pomeni, da se mo�kim in ženskam zagotovijo enake možnosti brez diskriminacije na podlagi spola.“
As is clear from paragraph 33 of this judgment, the Court has already held that, under the principle of nondiscrimination and, in particular, Articles 2(1) and 5(1) of Directive 76/207, protection against dismissal must be granted to women not only during maternity leave, but also throughout the period of the pregnancy.
Kot je razvidno iz točke 33 te sodbe, je Sodi�če že presodilo, da je treba na podlagi načela prepovedi diskriminacije in zlasti na podlagi členov 2(1) in 5(1) Direktive 76/207 ženski priznati varstvo pred odpustom ne le med porodni�kim dopustom, ampak med celotnim trajanjem nosečnosti.
According to the Court, dismissal of a female worker on account of pregnancy, or for a reason essentially based on that state, affects only women and therefore constitutes direct discrimination on the grounds of sex (see, to that effect, Handels- og Kontorfunktionærernes Forbund, paragraph 13; Brown, paragraphs 16, 24 and 25; McKenna, paragraph 47; and Paquay, paragraph 29).
Po mnenju Sodi�ča se odpust delavke zaradi nosečnosti ali zaradi razloga, ki temelji v glavnem na tem stanju, lahko nana�a le na ženske in zato pomeni neposredno diskriminacijo na podlagi spola (glej v tem smislu zgoraj navedene sodbe Handels- og Kontorfunktionærernes Forbund, točka 13; Brown, točke 16, 24 in 25; McKenna, točka 47, in Paquay, točka 29).
As the order for reference did not specify the reasons for which Flöckner dismissed Ms Mayr, it is for the referring court to determine the relevant facts of the dispute before it and, inasmuch as Ms Mayr was dismissed while she was on sickness leave — in order to undergo in vitro fertilisation treatment —, to determine whether the dismissal is essentially based on the fact that she was undergoing such treatment.
Ker v predložitveni odločbi razlogi, zaradi katerih je družba Flöckner odpustila S. Mayr, niso bili natančno navedeni, mora predložitveno sodi�če opredeliti upo�tevne okoli�čine spora, o katerem odloča, in če je bila tožeča stranka v postopku v glavni stvari odpu�čena med tem, ko je bila na bolni�kem dopustu, namenjenemu posegu oploditve in vitro, preveriti, ali tak odpust temelji v glavnem na dejstvu, da je bil opravljen ta poseg.
If that is the reason for Ms Mayr’s dismissal, it is necessary to establish whether that reason applies to workers of both sexes alike or, in contrast, whether it applies exclusively to one of them.
Če bi bil to razlog odpusta tožeče stranke v postopku v glavni stvari, je treba ugotoviti, ali ta razlog velja brez razlikovanja za delavce obeh spolov, ali pa nasprotno velja izključno za enega od njiju.
The Court has already held that, given that male and female workers are equally exposed to illness, if a female worker is dismissed on account of absence due to illness in the same circumstances as a man then there is no direct discrimination on grounds of sex (Handels- og Kontorfunktionærernes Forbund, paragraph 17).
Sodi�če je že ugotovilo, da če je bila delavka odpu�čena zaradi odsotnosti zaradi bolezni pod enakimi pogoji kot delavec, ko je �lo za delavke in delavce, ki so bili enako izpostavljeni bolezni, ne gre za neposredno diskriminacijo na podlagi spola (glej zgoraj navedeno sodbo Handels- og Kontorfunktionærernes Forbund, točka 17).
It is true that workers of both sexes can be temporarily prevented from carrying out their work on account of the medical treatment they must receive.
Gotovo je res, da so delavci obeh spolov lahko začasno nezmožni za delo zaradi zdravljenja, ki jim je bilo predpisano.
Nevertheless, the treatment in question in the main proceedings — namely a follicular puncture and the transfer to the woman’s uterus of the ova removed by way of that follicular puncture immediately after their fertilisation — directly affects only women.
Vendar se zadevna posega v zadevi v glavni stvari – in sicer punkcija foliklov in prenos jajčec, ki so nastala s to punkcijo, v maternico ženske takoj po oploditvi – neposredno nana�ata le na ženske.
It follows that the dismissal of a female worker essentially because she is undergoing that important stage of in vitro fertilisation treatment constitutes direct discrimination on grounds of sex.
Iz tega izhaja, da odpust delavke v glavnem zaradi tega, ker je bila opravljena ta pomembna faza oploditve in vitro, pomeni neposredno diskriminacijo na podlagi spola.
To allow an employer to dismiss a female worker in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings would, moreover, be contrary to the objective of protection which Article 2(3) of Directive 76/207 pursues, in so far as, admittedly, the dismissal is essentially based on the fact of the in vitro fertilisation treatment and, in particular, on the specific procedures, outlined in the previous paragraph, which such treatment involves.
Priznati, da lahko delodajalec odpusti delavko v okoli�činah, kot so te v postopku v glavni stvari, bi bilo v nasprotju z namenom varstva, ki ga določa člen 2(3) Direktive 76/207, če je do odpusta pri�lo v glavnem zaradi oploditve in vitro in med drugim zaradi specifičnih posegov, na�tetih v prej�nji točki, ki so del te oploditve.
Consequently, Articles 2(1) and 5(1) of Directive 76/207 preclude the dismissal of a female worker who, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, is at an advanced stage of in vitro fertilisation treatment, that is, between the follicular puncture and the immediate transfer of the in vitro fertilised ova into the uterus, inasmuch as it is established that the dismissal is essentially based on the fact that the woman has undergone such treatment.
Člena 2(1) in 5(1) Direktive 76/207 torej nasprotujeta odpustu delavke, ki je v okoli�činah, kot so te v postopku v glavni stvari, v poznej�i fazi oploditve in vitro, torej v fazi punkcije foliklov in takoj�njega prenosa jajčnih celic, oplojenih in vitro, v njeno maternico, če se dokaže, da je razlog za odpust v glavnem to, da je bil pri stranki opravljen tak poseg.
Having regard to the foregoing, the reply to the question referred must be that Directive 92/85, and, in particular, the prohibition of dismissal of pregnant workers provided for in Article 10(1) of that directive, must be interpreted as not extending to a female worker who is undergoing in vitro fertilisation treatment where, on the date she is given notice of her dismissal, her ova have already been fertilised by her partner’s sperm cells, so that in vitro fertilised ova exist, but they have not yet been transferred into her uterus.
Glede na navedeno je treba na zastavljeno vpra�anje odgovoriti tako, da je treba Direktivo 92/85 in med drugim prepoved odpusta nosečih delavk, določeno v členu 10, točka 1, te direktive, razlagati tako, da se ne nana�a na delavko, pri kateri se opravi oploditev in vitro, kadar je na dan, ko je bila odpu�čena, do oploditve njenih jajčnih celic s semenskimi celicami njenega partnerja že pri�lo, tako da že obstajajo jajčne celice, oplojene in vitro, vendar te �e niso bile prenesene v maternico te delavke.
Nevertheless, Articles 2(1) and 5(1) of Directive 76/207 preclude the dismissal of a female worker who, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, is at an advanced stage of in vitro fertilisation treatment, that is, between the follicular puncture and the immediate transfer of the in vitro fertilised ova into her uterus, inasmuch as it is established that the dismissal is essentially based on the fact that the woman has undergone such treatment.
Člena 2(1) in 5(1) Direktive 76/207 nasprotujeta odpustu delavke, ki je v okoli�činah, kot so v postopku v glavni stvari, v poznej�i fazi oploditve in vitro, torej v fazi punkcije foliklov in takoj�njega prenosa jajčec, oplojenih in vitro, v njeno maternico, če se dokaže, da je razlog za odpust v glavnem to, da je bil pri stranki opravljen tak poseg.
Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding (tenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) and, in particular, the prohibition of dismissal of pregnant workers provided for in Article 10(1) of that directive must be interpreted as not extending to a female worker who is undergoing in vitro fertilisation treatment where, on the date she is given notice of her dismissal, her ova have already been fertilised by her partner’s sperm cells, so that in vitro fertilised ova exist, but they have not yet been transferred into her uterus.
Direktivo Sveta 92/85/EGS z dne 19. oktobra 1992 o uvedbi ukrepov za spodbujanje izboljšav na področju varnosti in zdravja pri delu nosečih delavk in delavk, ki so pred kratkim rodile ali dojijo (deseta posebna direktiva v smislu člena 16(1) Direktive 89/391/EGS) in med drugim prepoved odpusta nosečih delavk, določeno v členu 10, točka 1, te direktive, je treba razlagati tako, da se ne nanaša na delavko, pri kateri se opravi oploditev in vitro, kadar je na dan, ko je bila odpuščena, do oploditve njenih jajčnih celic s semenskimi celicami njenega partnerja že prišlo, tako da že obstajajo jajčne celice, oplojene in vitro, vendar te še niso bile prenesene v maternico te delavke.
Article 2(1) and 5(1) of 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, preclude the dismissal of a female worker who, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, is at an advanced stage of in vitro fertilisation treatment, that is, between the follicular puncture and the immediate transfer of the in vitro fertilised ova into her uterus, inasmuch as it is established that the dismissal is essentially based on the fact that the woman has undergone such treatment.
Člena 2(1) in 5(1) Direktive Sveta 76/207/EGS z dne 9. februarja 1976 o izvrše -vanju načela enakega obravnavanja moških in žensk v zvezi z dostopom do zaposlitve, poklicnega usposabljanja in napredovanja ter delovnih pogojev nasprotujeta odpustu delavke, ki je v okoliščinah, kot so v postopku v glavni stvari, v poznejši fazi oploditve in vitro, torej v fazi punkcije foliklov in takojšnjega prenosa jajčec, oplojenih in vitro, v njeno maternico, če se dokaže, da je razlog za odpust v glavnem to, da je bil pri stranki opravljen tak poseg.
Case C-398/05
Zadeva C-398/05
(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf)
(Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, ki ga je vložilo Finanzgericht Düsseldorf)
(Common commercial policy — Countervailing duties — Protection against subsidies — Regulation (EC) No 1599/1999 — Stainless steel wires — Injury to the Community industry — Causal link)
„Skupna trgovinska politika – Izravnalne dajatve – Protisubvencijski ukrepi – Uredba (ES) �t. 1599/1999 – Žice iz nerjavnega jekla – Škoda za industrijo Skupnosti – Vzročna zveza“
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber), 28 February 2008 . . . . . .
Sodba Sodi�ča (četrti senat) z dne 28. februarja 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . I - 1059
Common commercial policy — Protection against subsidisation practices of non-Member States — Injury — Establishing a causal link — Obligations of the institutions — Taking into account of matters extraneous to the subsidy
Skupna trgovinska politika – Zaščita pred subvencioniranjem, ki ga izvajajo tretje države – Škoda – Ugotavljanje vzročne zveze – Obveznosti institucij – Upoštevanje dejavnikov, ki niso povezani s subvencioniranjem
SUMMARY — CASE C-398/05
POVZETEK – ZADEVA C-398/05
In determining, in an antisubsidy proceeding, injury to the Community industry, the Council and the Commission are under an obligation to consider whether the injury on which they intend to base their conclusions actually derives from the subsidised imports and must disregard any injury deriving from other factors, particularly from the conduct of Community producers.
Pri ugotavljanju �kode, ki je bila povzročena industriji Skupnosti, imata Svet in Komisija v okviru protisubvencijskega postopka dolžnost, da preverita, ali �koda, ki jo skleneta upo�tevati, dejansko izhaja iz subvencioniranega uvoza, in da izključita �kodo, ki izhaja iz drugih dejavnikov, zlasti tisto, katere vzrok je ravnanje proizvajalcev Skupnosti.
be regarded as a reliable indicator for the purposes of establishing what injury was suffered by the Community industry, it is for the parties pleading the invalidity of the regulation imposing the countervailing duty to adduce evidence to show that that factor could have had an effect of such magnitude that the final prices of the product could no longer be used to establish the existence of that injury and that there was a causal link between it and the subsidised imports.
zadevnega izdelka in je zato to ceno mogoče upo�tevati kot verodostojen kazalec za ugotavljanje �kode, povzročene industriji Skupnosti, morajo stranke, ki se sklicujejo na neveljavnost uredbe, s katero je naložena izravnalna dajatev, predložiti dokaze, ki izkazujejo, da je ta dejavnik lahko pomembno vplival na to, da končnih cen izdelka ni več mogoče uporabiti za ugotavljanje obstoja te �kode, in da je med to �kodo in subvencioniranim uvozom vzročna zveza.
Where the institutions have complied with that obligation and concluded that a factor arising from anticompetitive conduct of the Community producers constituted but a small percentage of the final price of the product in question, so that such price could
Če instituciji upo�tevata to obveznost in skleneta, da dejavnik, ki izhaja iz protikonkurenčnega ravnanja proizvajalcev Skupnosti, predstavlja le majhen delež končne cene
(see paras 35, 51, 54)
(Glej točke 35, 51 in 54.)
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber)28 February 2008 *
SODBA SODIŠČA (četrti senat) z dne 28. februarja 2008 *
REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany), made by decision of 2 November 2005, received at the Court on 15 November 2005, in the proceedings
V zadevi C-398/05, katere predmet je predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe na podlagi člena 234 ES, ki ga je vložilo Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Nemčija) z odločbo z dne 2. novembra 2005, ki je prispela na Sodi�če 15. novembra 2005, v postopku
JUDGMENT OF 28. 2.
SODBA Z DNE 28. 2.
2008 — CASE C-398/05
2008 – ZADEVA C-398/05 generalna pravobranilka: E. Sharpston, sodni tajnik: B.
— the Council of the European Union, by J.-P. Hix, acting as Agent, assisted by G. Berrisch, Rechtsanwalt,
– za Svet Evropske unije J.-P. Hix, zastopnik, skupaj z G. Berrischem, odvetnik,
This reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the validity of Council Regulation (EC) No 1599/1999 of 12 July 1999 imposing a definitive countervailing duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on stainless steel wires with a diameter of 1 mm or more originating in India and terminating the proceeding concerning imports of stainless steel wires with a diameter of 1 mm or more originating in the Republic of Korea (OJ 1999 L 189, p. 1).
Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe se nana�a na veljavnost Uredbe Sveta (ES) �t. 1599/1999 z dne 12. julija 1999 o uvedbi dokončne izravnalne dajatve in o dokončnem pobiranju začasne dajatve, uvedene na žico iz nerjavnega jekla premera 1 mm ali več s poreklom iz Indije, ter o ustavitvi postopka v zvezi z uvozom žice iz nerjavnega jekla premera 1 mm ali več s poreklom iz Republike Koreje (UL L 189, str. 1).
The reference was made in proceedings between AGST Draht- und Biegetechnik GmbH (‘AGST’) and Hauptzollamt Aachen (‘the Hauptzollamt’), by which the latter imposed on AGST a countervailing duty on imports of stainless steel wires with a diameter of 1 mm or more under subheading 7223 00 19 in the Combined Nomenclature (‘the CN’) originating in India.
Ta predlog je bil predložen v okviru spora med AGST Draht- und Biegetechnik GmbH (v nadaljevanju: družba AGST) in Hauptzollamt Aachen (v nadaljevanju: Hauptzollamt) zaradi izravnalne dajatve, ki jo je slednji naložil družbi AGST na podlagi uvoza žice iz nerjavnega jekla premera 1 mm ali več, uvr�čene pod tarifno pod�tevilko 7223 00 19 kombinirane nomenklature (v nadaljevanju: KN), s poreklom iz Indije.
The provisions which govern the imposition of countervailing duties by the European Community are set out in Council Regulation (EC) No 2026/97 of 6 October 1997 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 1997 L 288, p.
Določbe o izravnalnih dajatvah, ki jih uvede Evropska skupnost, so zajete v Uredbi Sveta (ES) �t. 2026/97 z dne 6. oktobra 1997 o za�čiti proti subvencioniranemu uvozu iz držav, ki niso članice Evropske skupnosti (UL L 288, str.
1), as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 461/2004 of 8 March 2004 (‘the basic regulation’).
1), kot je bila spremenjena z Uredbo Sveta (ES) �t. 461/2004 z dne 8. marca 2004 (v nadaljevanju: osnovna uredba).
2008 — CASE C-398/05
2008 – ZADEVA C-398/05
Article 1(1) of the basic regulation provides as follows:
Člen 1(1) osnovne uredbe določa: