natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In Spain, a Bill on clauses in collectiveagreements concerning the termination of contracts when workers reach retirement age wasadopted by the government in December 2004 and is now before Parliament.
V Španiji je vlada decembra 2004 sprejela osnutek zakona o klavzulah v kolektivnih pogodbah, ki zadevajo prekinitev pogodb, ko delavci dosežejo starostno mejo za upokojitev, in osnutek zakona zdaj obravnava parlament.
In Cyprus, a Billabolishing the legal maximum age limit of 60 years to be a member of the Commission for Public Education (which deals with appointments and other labour matters as regards public sector teachers) is also now before parliament.
Na Cipru je osnutek zakona o odpravi najvišje pravne starostne meje 60 let za članstvo v Komisiji za javno izobraževanje (ki se ukvarja z imenovanji in drugimi delovnimi vprašanji v zvezi z učitelji v javnem sektorju) trenutno prav tako v obravnavi v parlamentu.
In the UK, a Disability Discrimination Bill is progressing through Parliament.
V Združenem kraljestvu osnutek zakona o diskriminaciji na podlagi invalidnosti trenutno obravnava parlament.
In addition, in March2005, the government published a new Equality Bill which, on the one hand, proposes the establishment of a Commission for Equality and Human Rights and, on the other, plans to extend theprotection against discrimination on grounds of religion and belief to the provision of goods, facilities and services to the public, the provision and management of premises and the carrying out ofpublic functions.
Poleg tega je marca 2005 vlada objavila nov osnutek zakona o enakosti, ki na eni strani predlaga ustanovitev Komisije za enakost in človekove pravice, na drugi pa namerava razširiti obseg zaščite pred diskriminacijo na podlagi vere in prepričanja na zagotavljanje dobrin, ugodnosti in storitev javnosti, zagotavljanje in upravljanje prostorov ter izvajanje javnih funkcij.
In Northern Ireland, public consultation has taken place on options for a new Single Equality Bill, which aims to harmonise existing anti-discrimination legislation so far as practicable and to update and extend present provisions where appropriate.
Na Severnem Irskem poteka javno posvetovanje o možnostih za novi osnutek enotnega zakona o enakosti, ki naj bi uskladil obstoječo protidiskriminacijsko zakonodajo, kolikor je praktično mogoče, in posodobil ter razširil sedanje določbe, kjer bi bilo ustrezno.
In addition, it will consulton draft disability education regulations in Autumn 2005 with a view to these taking effect from September 2006.
Poleg tega bodo jeseni 2005 potekala posvetovanja o osnutku predpisov o izobraževanju invalidov, ki naj bi začeli veljati septembra 2006.
Meanwhile, in Norway, there is a proposal for an Act Prohibiting Discrimination on the Grounds of Ethnicity, Religion etc.and another proposal for an Act concerning the Equality and Discrimination Ombudsman (on the five grounds of the Directives) and the Equality and Discrimination Board of Appeal.
Medtem je na Norveškem v obravnavi predlog zakona o prepovedi diskriminacije na podlagi narodnosti, vere itd. in še en predlog zakona o ombudsmanu za enakost in diskriminacijo (na podlagi petih razlogov iz direktiv) in odboru za pritožbe glede enakosti in diskriminacije.
In Estonia, legislation still needs to be introduced to transpose the non-employment aspects of the Racial Equality Directive and in Spain, a Royal Decree is due to be enacted on the make-up andfunctions of the Council for promotion of equal treatment of all persons without discrimination ongrounds of racial or ethnic origin so that the specialised body can start functioning.
V Estoniji je še vedno treba uvesti zakonodajo za prenos vidikov Direktive o rasni enakosti, ki niso povezani z zaposlovanjem, v Španiji pa bo stopila v veljavo Kraljeva uredba o sestavi in funkcijah Sveta za spodbujanje enakega obravnavanja vseh oseb brez razlikovanja na podlagi rasnega ali narodnostnega izvora, da bo ta specializirani organ lahko začel delovati.
2005Part I > Progress in implementing the Racial Equality and the Employment Equality Directives Page 16
CM Del I > Napredek pri izvajanju direktiv o rasni enakosti in enakosti pri zaposlovanju Page 19
PROTECTING AND ENFORCING INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS
ZAŠČITA IN UVELJAVLJANJE PRAVIC POSAMEZNIKA
Individual rights protected by the Racial Equality and Employment Equality Directives must beproperly enforced through action at the national level.
Pravice posameznikov, ki so zaščitene z Direktivo o rasni enakosti in Direktivo o enakosti pri zaposlovanju, se morajo pravilno uveljaviti z ukrepi na nacionalni ravni.
In most EU Member States, civil and labourcourts, and sometimes criminal courts, hear and rule on such cases.
V večini držav članic take primere obravnavajo in o njih presojajo civilna ter delovna sodišča, včasih pa tudi kazenska sodišča.
There are alternatives insome countries, including administrative proceedings before equality bodies.
V nekaterih državah so na razpolago še druge možnosti, vključno z upravnim postopkom pred organi za enakost.
Conciliation as a wayof resolving discrimination disputes is also widely available.
Marsikje je na razpolago tudi sprava kot način za razrešitev sporov o diskriminaciji.
In general, victims can seek redress by invoking national anti-discrimination laws before nationalcourts.
Na splošno lahko žrtve poiščejo zadoščenje s sklicevanjem na nacionalne protidiskriminacijske zakone pred nacionalnimi sodišči.
But the Directives also protect individuals in cases where they have not been properly orfully implemented into national legislation (see box).
Toda direktivi ščitita pravice posameznikov tudi v primerih, ko nista bili pravilno ali v celoti preneseni v nacionalno zakonodajo (glej okvir).
Rights of individuals in cases where the Directives have not been fully transposed
Pravice posameznikov v primerih, ko direktivi nista bili v celoti prenese
Where the alleged discriminator is the State or a public body, provisions of the anti-discrimination Directives which are clear, precise and unconditional can be directly invoked before national courts.Such provisions are defined as having ‘vertical direct effect’.
Če domnevno diskriminacijo izvaja država ali javni organ, se je na določbe protidiskriminacijskir direktiv, ki so jasne, natančne in brezpogojne, mogoče neposredno sklicevati pred nacionalnimi sodišči. Takšne določbe so opredeljene kot določbe z „vertikalnim neposrednim učinkom".
This means that, if a Member State hasfailed to transpose the Directives on time, or has transposed them incorrectly, individuals who allegethey have been discriminated against by a public body can nevertheless invoke the provisions of the Directives.
To pomeni, da se, če država članica ni pravočasno prenesla direktiv ali ju je prenesla nepravilno, lahko posamezniki, ki trdijo, da jih je diskriminiral javni organ, kljub temu sklicujejo na določbe direktiv.
Where the alleged discriminator is another individual or private entity, national courts must give Directives ‘indirect effect’and do everything possible to interpret national law to comply with European Community law.
Če domnevno diskriminacijo izvaja drug posameznik ali zasebni subjekt, morajo nacionalna sodišča direktivama zagotoviti „posredni učinek" in storiti vse, kar je mogoče, ter nacionalno zakonodajo razlagati skladno z zakonodajo Evropske skupnosti.
This means they must, so far as possible, interpret national law in thelight of the wording and purpose of the Directive in order to achieve the result intended by the Directive.
To pomeni, da morajo v čim večji možni meri razlagati nacionalno zakonodajo v luči besedila in namena direktiv, da se dosežejo rezultati, ki jih direktivi predvidevata.
It is irrelevant whether the national legislation was adopted before or after the Directive(Case C-106/89 Marleasing [1990] ECR 4135).
Pri tem ni pomembno, ali je bila nacionalna zakonodaja sprejeta pred direktivo ali po njej (Primer C-106/89 Marleasing [1990] ECR 4135).
Athird principle of Community law helps to ensure that Member States properly implement the Equality Directives, namely the principle of ‘State liability’(Cases C-6 & 9/90 Francovich, joinedcases C46/93 Brasserie du Pźcheurand C-48/93 Factortame). Where, by the transposition deadline, there is no national law implementing a directive, or national law is contrary to EC law, the Member State must compensate for loss resulting from this failure to implement the Directive. Forthe State to be liable, certain conditions must be satisfied: firstly, the aim of the Community provisionwhich has been breached must be to grant rights to the individual; secondly, the breach must be sufficiently serious; thirdly, there must be a causal link between the State’s failure and the damagesuffered by the persons affected. National courts can be asked to decide whether the Member Statehas wrongly implemented the Equality Directives, and if the court finds it has and these conditionsare met, the complainant may be entitled to monetary compensation. National courts can also refer questions about the interpretation of particular requirements of the Directives to the European Court of Justice which will then consider and pass judgement on them.
Tretje načelo zakonodaje Skupnosti, ki pomaga zagotoviti, da države članice pravilno izvajajo direktive o enakosti, je načelo „državne odgovornosti' (Primer C-6 & 9/90 Francovich, povezana primera C-46/93 Brasserie du Pêcheur in C-48/93 Factortame). Če do roka za prenos ni zagotovljena nacionalna zakonodaja za izvajanje direktive ali je nacionalna zakonodaja v nasprotju z zakonodajo ES, morajo države članice poskrbeti za nadomestilo za škodo, ki je nastala zaradi neizvajanja direktive. Da bi država lahko bila odgovorna, morajo biti izpolnjeni nekateri pogoji: 1) cilj določbe Skupnosti, ki je bila kršena, mora biti zagotavljanje pravic posameznika, 2) kršitev mora biti dovolj resna in 3) med opustitvijo države in škodo, ki jo utrpijo prizadete osebe, mora obstajati vzročna povezava. Nacionalna sodišča je mogoče zaprositi, naj odločijo, ali je država članica napačno izvajala direktivi o enakosti, in če sodišče ugotovi, da je, in so zgornji pogoji izpolnjeni, je tožnik lahko upravičen do denarnega nadomestila. Nacionalna sodišča lahko vprašanja glede razlage določenih zahtev iz direktiv naslovijo tudi na Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti, ki jih nato pretehta in ¡zreče sodbo.
Annual report on equalityand nondiscrimination
Letno poročilo — Rasna enakost in enakost pri zaposlovanju Csl
The role of the European Court of Justice
Vloga Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti
Where a national court is unsure whether the implementation of the Equality Directives is corrector is not certain how a particular term in the Directives should be interpreted, it can, and should,ask the European Court of Justice (ECJ) for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of the Directives, in order to enable it to give its judgment in the case before it (Article 234 of the ECTreaty).
Če nacionalno sodišče ni prepričano, ali je izvajanje direktiv o enakosti pravilno, ali ni prepričano kako bi bilo treba razlagati določen izraz iz direktiv, lahko zaprosi in je dolžno zaprositi Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti za predhodno odločitev o razlagi direktiv, da lahko v zadevnem primeru izreče svojo sodbo (člen 234 Pogodbe ES).
Last instance courts (those whose judgments cannot be appealed) are obliged to refersuch questions to the ECJ.
Sodišča zadnje stopnje (na sodbe katerih se ni mogoče pritožiti) so dolžna takšna vprašanja nasloviti na Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti.
In response, the ECJ will look at the relevant provision of the Directivesand give its interpretation taking account of the circumstances of the national case.
V odgovor bo Sodišče ES pregledalo vse ustrezne določbe direktiv in dalo svojo razlago ob upoštevanju okoliščin nacionalnega primera.
It will also consider any observations submitted by Member State governments or the Commission.
Prav tako bo upoštevalo vsa opažanja, ki jih predložijo vlade držav članic ali Komisija.
Such ECJjudgments are extremely important for the proper and uniform application of the provisions of the Directives.
Predhodne odločitve so ključnega pomena pri razlaganju zakonodaje EU o spolni enakosti, na primer.
Preliminary rulings have been vital in the interpretation of EU sex equality legislation, forexample.NGOs, trade unions and other interested organisations in Member States can seek clarification of the provisions of the Directives and test the law in their country by strategically bringingcases which force national courts to make preliminary references to the ECJ.
Nevladne organizacije, sindikati in druge zainteresirane organizacije v državah članicah lahko prosijo za razjasnitev določb direktiv in preverijo zakonodajo v svojih državah, tako da strateško predložijo primere, ki nacionalna sodišča silijo, da se za predhodna sklicevanja obrnejo na Sodišče ES.
Two German courts have referred questions to the ECJ on the compliance with the Employment Equality Directive of a provision in national law under which fixed-term contracts may be made withworkers aged 52 or over (Case C-144/04 Mangold,OJ C 146/1, 29.5.2004; and Case C-261/04Schmidt,OJ C 228/41, 11.9.2004, though the latter has since been withdrawn — for the Official Journal of the European Union(OJ) go to http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/).
Dve nemški sodišči sta na Sodišče ES naslovili vprašanja glede skladnosti z Direktivo o enakosti pri zaposlovanju določbe v nacionalni zakonodaji, po kateri je mogoče sklepati pogodbe za določen čas z delavci, starimi 52 let ali več (primera C-144/04 Mangold, Uradni list C 146/01, 29.5.2004 in C-261/04 Schmidt, Uradni list C 228/41, 11.9.2004, od katerih je bil slednji že umaknjen - Uradni list EU je na spletni strani http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/).
AHungarian court has also asked the ECJ whether a provision of the Hungarian Criminal Code,which makes the public use or display of a five-pointed red star a minor offence, is compatible withthe Community law principle of nondiscrimination (Case C-328/04 Vajnai Attila, OJ C 262/15,23.10.2004).
Tudi madžarsko sodišče se je na Sodišče ES obrnilo z vprašanjem, ali je določba madžarskega Kazenskega zakonika, po kateri je javna uporaba ali razkazovanje peterokrake rdeče zvezde prekršek, skladna z načelom zakonodaje Skupnosti o nediskriminaciji (primer C-328/04 Vajnai Attila, Uradni list: 23.10.2004/C 262/15).
The question is whether the Racial Equality Directive allows people to express theirpolitical convictions through a symbol.
Vprašanje je, ali Direktiva o rasni enakosti dovoljuje ljudem izražati politična prepričanja s simboli.
ASpanish court also made a preliminary reference to the ECJ which involves an interpretation of the notion of disability for the purposes of the protectionafforded by Directive 2000/78/EC (Case C-13/05 Chacón Navas, OJ C 69/8, 19.3.2005).
Tudi špansko sodišče je Sodišče ES prosilo za predhodno mnenje glede razlage pojma invalidnosti za namene zaščite, ki jo predvideva Direktiva 2000/78 (primer C-13/05; Chacón Navas, Uradni list C 69/8, 19.03.2005).
References of this kind can be lengthy, especially where the question comes from a last instancecourt.
Tovrstna sklicevanja so lahko kar dolga, zlasti če vprašanje postavi sodišče zadnje stopnje.
Questions from national courts in relation to the Equality Directives and eventually judgements from the European Court of Justice can be expected to rise steadily over the coming years.In the meantime, national judgements relating to the Equality Directives have begun to emerge in Member States (see boxes for some examples).
Pričakovati je, da bo število vprašanj nacionalnih sodišč v zvezi z direktivama o enakosti in morebitnih sodb Sodišča ES v prihodnjih letih stalno naraščalo.
Introduction — The anti-discrimination framework
Medtem so se v državah članicah začele pojavljati nacionalne sodbe, povezane z direktivama o enakosti (glej primere v okvirjih).
Court cases concerning discrimination
Sodni primeri o diskriminaciji
Belgium and France: Landlords convicted of racial discrimination
Belgija in Francija: Lastniki obsojeni zaradi rasne diskriminacije
In December 2004,Antwerp criminal court in Belgium convicted a houseowner of discrimination becausehe had refused to rent his house to a Belgian couple of Congolese origin.
Decembra 2004 je belgijsko kazensko sodišče v Antwerpnu obsodilo diskriminacije lastnika hiše, ker svoje hiše ni bil pripravljen oddati belgijskemu paru s poreklom iz Konga.
The owner had instructed therental agency to ‘preferably not rent to foreigners’.
Lastnik je nepremičninski agenciji dal navodila, naj hiše „po možnosti ne odda tujcem".
The Centre for Equal Opportunities and Opposition to Racism, the specialised body in Belgium, participated in the case alongside the public prosecutor.
V primeru je poleg javnega tožilca sodeloval tudi Center za enake možnosti in boj proti rasizmu, ki je belgijski specializirani organ.
Onaverage, 7% of the complaints of racism received by the Centre each year relate to housing.
V povprečju je 7 % pritožb, ki jih Center prejme vsako leto, povezanih s stanovanjskimi zadevami.
The houseowner was ordered to pay EUR 250 in damages to the Centre.
Lastnik hiše je moral Centru plačati odškodnino v znesku 250 evrov.
In September 2004, the Criminal Court of Grenoble, France, convicted a landowner for refusing to sell apiece of land to an ‘Arab’, arguing that she was afraid of causing problems with the neighbours.
Septembra 2004 je kazensko sodišče v Grenoblu v Franciji obsodilo lastnico, ki ni bila pripravljena prodati zemljiške parcele „Arabcu" in je trdila, da se boji težav s sosedi.
The Courtfined her EUR 10 000, sentenced her to a suspended four-month prison sentence and ordered her to pay EUR 1 500 damages to the buyer and EUR 500 to his wife.
Sodišče ji je naložilo globo v višini 10 000 evrov, jo obsodilo na štiri mesece pogojne zaporne kazni in ji naložilo plačilo odškodnine kupcu v višini 1 500 evrov in njegovi ženi v višini 500 evrov.
The Court also ordered the conviction to bepublished in the professional bulletin of the federation of real-estate brokers and awarded damages to thetwo NGOs supporting the victim, MRAPand SOS Racism.
Sodišče je tudi določilo, da je sodbo treba objaviti v strokovnem glasilu združenja nepremičninskih posrednikov in dosodilo odškodnino dvema nevladnima organizacijama, ki sta podpirali žrtev, in sicer MRAP in SOS rasizem.
Finland: Annulment of Church decision forbidding those living in same-sex registered partnerships becoming chaplains
Finska: Razveljavitev odločitve Cerkve, ki prepoveduje, da bi tisti, ki živijo v registriranih istospolnih partnerstvih, postali duhovniki
VaasaAdministrative Court recently annulled a decision of the Evangelical Lutheran Church that an applicant was not eligible to be appointed as chaplain, because she publicly lives in a same-sex relationshipand had announced she would officially register the relationship.
Upravno sodišče v Vaasi je pred kratkim razveljavilo odločitev Evangeličanske luteranske cerkve, da prosilka ne more biti imenovana za duhovnico, ker javno živi v istospolnem partnerstvu in je izjavila, da ga namerava tudi uradno registrirati.
This was found to contravene the Non-Discrimination Act prohibiting discrimination, inter alia, on the grounds of sexual orientation or ‘other reasons related to a person’, and being in a same-sex relationship was found to be another such reason.In the Finnish law for churches, for example, the Church Order or the Church Act, there is no exceptionimplementing the ‘religious ethos’exception of Article 4(2) of the Employment Equality Directive.
Odločitev je kršila Protidiskriminacijski zakon, ki med drugim prepoveduje diskriminacijo na podlagi spolne usmerjenosti ali „drugih razlogov, povezanih z osebo", in življenje v istospolnem partnerstvu je eden od takih drugih razlogov. V finski zakonodaji o cerkvah, npr.
Ireland: Labour Court relies on Racial Equality Directive to find unfair dismissal on the groundsof race
Odredbi o cerkvah in Zakonu o cerkvah ni nobenih izjem za izvajanje izjeme o „verskih običajih" iz člena 4(2) Direktive o enakosti pri zaposlovanju.
Before transposition, the Irish law on the burden of proof was not in line with the Directives.
Pred prenosom irska zakonodaja o dokaznem bremenu ni bila usklajena z direktivama.
The Court referred to the case-law of the European Court of Justice, according to which a non-implemented Directive can be relied upon to inform the interpretation of national law in cases involving individuals: national courts are required to interpret nationalprovisions as far as possible in the light of the wording and the purpose of Directives in order to achievethe result pursued by that Directive.
Sodišče seje sklicevalo na sodno prakso Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti, po kateri se je mogoče opirati na direktivo, čeprav se ne izvaja, pri razlaganju nacionalne zakonodaje v primerih, v katere so vpleteni posamezniki: nacionalna sodišča so v čim večji meri dolžna razlagati nacionalne določbe v luči besedila direktiv, da se doseže rezultat, ki ga predvideva določena direktiva.
The respondent was ordered to pay the complainant compensationof EUR 15 000 (EUR 2 000 for loss of earnings and EUR 13 000 for non-pecuniary damage to compensate for the humiliation suffered and the deprivation of the fundamental right to equal treatment and freedom from racial prejudice).
Toženec je bil dolžan tožniku plačati nadomestilo v znesku 15 000 evrov (2 000 evrov zaradi izgube dohodka in 13 000 evrov zaradi nedenarne škode, se pravi ponižanja, ki ga je delavec utrpel, in kratenja temeljne pravice do enakega obravnavanja ter zaščite pred rasnimi predsodki).
Hungary: Rights of NGOs to stand as plaintiffs in public interest discrimination cases
Madžarska: Pravica nevladnih organizacij, da nastopajo kot tožniki v primerih diskriminacije v javnem interesu
Agay and lesbian NGO brought a case against Gáspár Károli University of the Reformed Church, alleging that the university had discriminated against gay theology students.
Gejevska in lezbična nevladna organizacija je sprožila primer proti Univerzi reformirane cerkve Gáspár Károli zaradi trditve, da je univerza izvajala diskriminacijo proti homoseksualnim študentom teologije.
After dismissing a theologystudent who had confessed his homosexuality to one of his professors, the Theology Faculty Council published a general declaration on 10 October 2003, claiming that ‘the church may not approve of […]the education, recruitment and employment of pastors and teachers of religion who conduct or promotea homosexual way of life’.
Po izključitvi študenta teologije, ki je enemu svojih profesorjev priznal svojo homoseksualnost, je Svet teološke fakultete dne 10. oktobra 2003 objavil splošno izjavo, v kateri je trdil, da „cerkev ne more dovoliti [...] izobraževanja, najemanja in zaposlovanja pastorjev in učiteljev, ki živijo kot homoseksualci ali spodbujajo tak način življenja".
The first and second instance courts held that the university had exercised itsfreedom of expression within constitutional limits and had not discriminated against homosexuals.
Sodišče prve in druge stopnje je presodilo, da je univerza izvajala svojo svobodo izražanja znotraj ustavnih meja in ni izvajala diskriminacije proti homoseksualcem.
The NGO plans to request review by the Supreme Court.
Nevladna organizacija namerava zahtevati revizijo postopka na Vrhovnem sodišču.