natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The second sentence of Paragraph 1360, Paragraph 1360a and Paragraph 1360b of the Civil Code, and the second subparagraph of Paragraph 16, apply by analogy.’
Ustrezno se uporabljajo členi 1360, druga poved, 1360a in 1360b ter člen 16(2) državljanskega zakonika.“
Paragraph 11(1) of that Law provides:
Člen 11(1) istega zakona določa:
‘Save provision to the contrary, a life partner shall be regarded as a member of the family of the other life partner.’
„Življenjski partner �teje za družinskega člana drugega življenjskega partnerja, če ni določeno drugače.“
By the LPartG, the German legislature introduced amendments to Book VI of the Social Security Code — statutory old age pension schemes (Sozialgesetzbuch VI — Gesetzliche Rentenversicherung).
Nem�ki zakonodajalec je z LPartG spremenil zakonik o socialnem varstvu VI – zakonsko pokojninsko zavarovanje (Sozialgesetzbuch VI – Gesetzliche Rentenversicherung).
Paragraph 46 of Book VI, in the version in force since 1 January 2005 (‘the Social Security Code’), provides:
Člen 46 iz dela VI navedenega zakonika v različici, ki velja od 1. januarja 2005 (v nadaljevanju: zakonik o socialnem varstvu), določa:
This entitlement shall be restricted to a maximum period of 24 calendar months dating from the month following that of the insured’s death.
Ta pravica traja največ 24 mesecev po izteku meseca, v katerem je umrl zavarovanec.
The termination or dissolution of a new partnership shall be regarded as equivalent, respectively, to the dissolution or annulment of a new marriage.’
Za razvezo ali razveljavitev nove zakonske zveze �teje prenehanje ali razveljavitev nove življenjske partnerske skupnosti.“
Book VI contains other similar provisions on the treating of life partnership as equivalent to marriage, in particular Paragraph 47(4), Paragraph 90(3), Paragraph 107(3), and Paragraph 120e(1).
Isti del VI vsebuje �e druge podobne določbe o izenačenju življenjske partnerske skupnosti z zakonsko zvezo, to so zlasti členi 47(4), 90(3), 107(3) in 120d(1).
The Collective Agreement for Germany’s theatres
Kolektivna pogodba za nem�ka gledali�ča
1080; ‘the Collective Agreement’) provides:
1080, v nadaljevanju: kolektivna pogodba) določa:
He shall also determine the date from which the insurance required under this Agreement must be taken out.
Določi tudi trenutek, od katerega mora biti sklenjeno zavarovanje na podlagi te tarifne pogodbe.
Paragraph 4 of the Collective Agreement provides:
Člen 4 kolektivne pogodbe določa :
‘The theatre operator and the theatrical professional shall each bear one half of the insurance premiums.
„Upravljavec gledali�ča in umetni�ki delavec plačata vsak polovico zavarovalni�ke premije.
The theatre operator must remit the insurance premiums to the insurance institution.’
Upravljavec gledali�ča mora prenesti zavarovalne premije na zavod za zavarovanje.“
Paragraphs 27, 32 and 34 of the VddB Regulations provide:
Členi 27, 32 in 34 statuta VddB določajo:
‘Paragraph 27 — Nature of pension and general conditions
„Člen 27 – Vrste socialnega zavarovanja in splo�ni pogoji
Paragraph 30(5) of the VddB Regulations sets out the procedure for determining the amount of the retirement pension by reference to which the survivor’s pension is to be calculated.
Člen 30(5) istega statuta določa način izračuna zneska starostne pokojnine, na podlagi katerega se izračuna izplačilo za preživelo osebo.
Mr Maruko’s life partner had been a member of the VddB since 1 September 1959 and had continued to contribute voluntarily to that institution during the periods when he was not obliged to be a member.
Slednji je bil od 1. septembra 1959 zavarovan pri VddB in je prostovoljno plačeval prispevke v to blagajno v obdobjih, ko pri njej ni bil obvezno zavarovan.
Mr Maruko’s life partner died on 12 January 2005.
Življenjski partner T. Maruka je umrl 12. januarja 2005.
By letter dated 17 February 2005, Mr Maruko applied to the VddB for a widower’s pension.
Z dopisom z dne 17. februarja 2005 je T. Maruko pri VddB zaprosil za vdovsko pokojnino.
By decision of 28 February 2005, the VddB rejected his application on the ground that its regulations did not provide for such an entitlement for surviving life partners.
Ta je z odločbo z dne 28. februarja 2005 zavrnil vlogo, ker statut ni določal take pravice za preživele življenjske partnerje.
According to Mr Maruko, the VddB’s refusal infringes the principle of equal treatment, given that, since 1 January 2005, the German legislature has placed life partnership and marriage on an equal footing, in particular by introducing Paragraph 46(4) into the Social Security Code.
Po njegovem mnenju zavrnitev s strani VddB kr�i načelo enakega obravnavanja, ker je nem�ki zakonodajalec po 1. januarju 2005 uveljavil tako enakost med življenjsko partnersko skupnostjo in zakonsko zvezo, zlasti s tem, da ko je v zakonik o socialnem varstvu dodal člen 46(4).
To deny that a person whose life partner has died is entitled to survivor’s benefits on the same conditions as a surviving spouse is discrimination on grounds of that person’s sexual orientation.
Dejstvo, da osebi po smrti njenega življenjskega partnerja ni dodeljeno izplačilo za preživele osebe pod enakimi pogoji, kot preživelemu zakoncu, naj bi pomenilo diskriminacijo na podlagi spolne usmerjenosti te osebe.
In the opinion of M. Maruko, life partners are treated less favourably than spouses, even though, like spouses, they must support and care for one another, they are mutually committed to a lifetime union and they each accept responsibilities with regard to the other.
Po mnenju T. Maruka so življenjski partnerji obravnavni manj ugodno kot zakonci, čeprav si morajo tako kot slednji pomagati, se podpirati in ustvariti skupno življenje ter imajo odgovornost drug do drugega.
The rules relating to the property of life partners in Germany are the same as those relating to the property of spouses.
Premoženjska ureditev življenjskih partnerjev naj bi bila v Nemčiji enaka premoženjski ureditvi zakoncev.
The referring court seeks to know, first, whether the pension scheme managed by the VddB can be regarded as equivalent to a state social security scheme within the meaning of Article 3(3) of Directive 2000/78 and whether that scheme is outside the scope of that directive.
Prvič, ob tem, ko se spra�uje, ali je sistem socialnega zavarovanja, ki ga upravlja VddB, primerljiv z javnim sistemom socialne varnosti v smislu člena 3(3) Direktive 2000/78 in ali se ta direktiva uporablja za navedeni sistem, predložitveno sodi�če navaja, da govori v prid tej primerljivosti dejstvo, da je zavarovanje pri VddB obvezno na podlagi zakona in da ni predviden noben dogovor v zvezi z zadevnim zavarovanjem v okviru gledali�č.
It states that the fact that membership of the VddB is a statutory obligation and that it is out of the question for such membership to be
Vendar dodaja, da ima gledali�ko osebje zunaj delovnih obdobij možnost
MARUKO the subject of negotiation within any of the theatre companies is indicative of such equivalence. However, the referring court goes on to note that, outside periods of work, theatrical professionals have the possibility of voluntarily continuing membership of the pension scheme; that the scheme is based on the principle of capitalisation; that the theatre company and the insured person each pay one half of the contributions; and that the VddB manages and regulates its activities autonomously, without any involvement on the part of the federal legislature.
MARUKO prostovoljno nadaljevati zadevno socialno zavarovanje v postopku v glavni stvari, da to zavarovanje temelji na sistemu kapitalskega kritja, da polovico prispevkov plačajo gledali�ča, polovico pa zavarovanci, in da VddB upravlja in ureja svoje dejavnosti avtonomno, brez poseganja zveznega zakonodajalca.
The referring court states that, in view of the structure of the VddB and the decisive influence exercised by the theatre companies and insured persons over its operation, it is inclined to think that the VddB does not manage a scheme equivalent to a state social security scheme, within the meaning of Article 3(3) of Directive 2000/78.
Predložitveno sodi�če navaja, da je glede na strukturo VddB in na odločilni vpliv, ki ga imajo na njegovo delovanje gledali�ča in zavarovanci, nagnjeno k mnenju, da sistem, ki ga upravlja navedena blagajna, ne �teje za javni sistem socialne varnosti v smislu člena 3(3) Direktive 2000/78.
The referring court seeks to know, secondly, whether the survivor’s benefit at issue can be regarded as ‘pay’, within the meaning of Article 3(1)(c) of Directive 2000/78, which would justify the application of the Directive.
Drugič, predložitveno sodi�če se spra�uje, ali se zadevno izplačilo za preživelo osebo v postopku v glavni stvari lahko �teje za „plačilo“ iz člena 3(1)(c) Direktive 2000/78, kar naj bi upravičilo uporabo te določbe.
The referring court states that, as a general rule, in the light of the case law of the Court, benefits payable to survivors come within the scope of that concept of ‘pay’.
Predložitveno sodi�če navaja, da se za izplačila za preživele osebe ob upo�tevanju sodne prakse Sodi�ča načeloma uporablja ta pojem „plačilo“.
According to the referring court, that interpretation is not affected by the fact that the survivor’s benefit at issue is paid not to the worker, but to his surviving partner, because the entitlement to such a benefit is an advantage which derives from the worker’s membership of the pension scheme managed by the VddB, so that the benefit accrues to the worker’s surviving partner by virtue of the employment relationship between the employer and the worker concerned.
Po njegovem mnenju te razlage ne omaje okoli�čina, da se zadevnega izplačila za preživelo osebo v postopku v glavni stvari ne izplača delavcu, temveč njegovemu preživelemu partnerju, saj je pravica do tega izplačila ugodnost, ki izhaja iz zavarovanja delavca pri sistemu socialnega zavarovanja, ki ga upravlja VddB, tako da navedeno izplačilo prejme njegov preživeli partner v okviru delovnega razmerja med delodajalcem in navedenim delavcem.
The referring court seeks, thirdly, to know whether the combined provisions of Article 1 and Article 2(2)(a) of Directive 2000/78 preclude provisions in regulations such as those of the VddB, under which a person whose life partner has died does not receive survivor’s benefits equivalent to those offered to a surviving spouse, even though, like spouses, the life partners have been living in a union of mutual support and assistance which was formally constituted for life.
Tretjič, predložitveno sodi�če želi vedeti, ali določbe člena 1 v povezavi s členom 2(2)(a) Direktive 2000/78 nasprotujejo določbam statuta, kot je statut VddB, na podlagi katerih oseba – po smrti svojega življenjskega partnerja – ne prejme izplačila za preživelo osebo, enakega izplačilu, ki ga prejme preživeli zakonec, čeprav sta življenjska partnerja, tako kot zakonci, živela v formalno sklenjeni dosmrtni skupnosti medsebojne pomoči in podpore.
According to the referring court, since the present case falls within the scope of Directive 2000/78 and there is discrimination, Mr Maruko can rely on the provisions of the Directive.
Po stali�ču predložitvenega sodi�ča bi se T. Maruko lahko skliceval na določbe Direktive 2000/78, ker se ta direktiva uporablja za ta primer in ker gre za diskriminacijo.
The referring court adds that, unlike heterosexual couples who can enter into marriage and, should the case arise, be entitled to survivor’s benefits, it was impossible for the insured person and the applicant in the main proceedings, because of their sexual orientation, to satisfy the condition relating to marriage on which entitlement to such benefits is dependent under the pension scheme managed by the VddB.
Predložitveno sodi�če dodaja, da v nasprotju s heteroseksualnimi pari, ki lahko sklenejo zakonsko zvezo in imajo v tem primeru pravico do izplačila za preživele osebe, zavarovanec in tožeča stranka v postopku v glavni stvari zaradi svoje spolne usmerjenosti ne moreta v nobenem primeru izpolniti pogoja zakonske zveze, od katerega je odvisno uživanje tega izplačila v skladu s sistemom socialnega zavarovanja, ki ga upravlja VddB.
In the opinion of the referring court, it is possible that the combined provisions of Articles 1 and 2(2)(a) of Directive 2000/78 preclude provisions such as those of the VddB Regulations under which entitlement to those benefits is restricted to surviving spouses.
Po stali�ču predložitvenega sodi�ča bi lahko določbe člena 1 v povezavi s členom 2(2)(a) Direktive 2000/78 nasprotovale določbam statuta, kot je statut VddB, da omejujejo upravičenje do navedenega izplačila preživelim zakoncem.
If the combined provisions of Articles 1 and 2(2)(a) of Directive 2000/78 preclude provisions of that nature in regulations such as those of the VddB, the referring court seeks to know, fourthly, whether discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation is permitted in the light of Recital 22 in the preamble to that directive.
Četrtič, če določbe člena 1 v povezavi s členom 2(2)(a) Direktive 2000/78 nasprotujejo določbam statuta, kot je statut VddB, se predložitveno sodi�če spra�uje, ali je diskriminacija zaradi spolne usmerjenosti dopustna na podlagi uvodne izjave 22 navedene direktive.
The referring court notes that the content of that recital is not reflected in the enacting terms of Directive 2000/78.
Opozarja, da ta uvodna izjava ni bila povzeta v členih navedene direktive.
It wonders whether such a recital can restrict the scope of the Directive.
Spra�uje se, ali taka uvodna izjava lahko omeji področje uporabe Direktive 2000/78.
The referring court considers that, in view of the importance of the Community law principle of equal treatment, it is not appropriate to interpret the recitals to the Directive broadly.
Predložitveno sodi�če meni, da se glede na pomen skupnostnega načela enakega obravnavanja uvodnih izjav te direktive ne sme razlagati �iroko.
In that connection, the referring court seeks to know whether, in the case before it, the VddB’s refusal to pay survivor’s benefits to a person whose life partner has died constitutes discrimination which is permissible even though it is based on sexual orientation.
V zvezi s tem spra�uje, ali dejstvo, da je VddB v postopku v glavni stvari zavrnil dodelitev izplačila za preživele osebe osebi, katere življenjski partner je umrl, pomeni dopustno diskriminacijo, čeprav temelji na spolni usmerjenosti.
Fifthly, the referring court seeks to know whether, pursuant to Case C-262/88 Barber ([1990] ECR I-1889), entitlement to survivors’ benefits is limited to periods
Petič, predložitveno sodi�če želi vedeti, ali je v skladu s sodbo z dne 17. maja 1990 v zadevi Barber (C-262/88, Recueil, str. I-1889), pravica do izplačil za preživele osebe
MARUKO subsequent to 17 May 1990.
MARUKO omejena na čas po 17. maju 1990.
The referring court states that the provisions of national law at issue in the main proceedings fall under Article 141 EC and that the direct effect of that Article can be relied on only in respect of benefits payable for periods of employment subsequent to 17 May 1990.
Navaja, da zadevne nacionalne določbe v postopku v glavni stvari temeljijo na členu 141 ES in da se je na neposredni učinek tega člena mogoče sklicevati le glede izplačil, dolgovanih na podlagi delovnega razmerja po 17. maju 1990.
The referring court refers in that regard to Case C-200/91 Coloroll Pension Trustees ([1994] ECR I-4389).
V zvezi s tem navaja sodbo z dne 28. septembra 1994 v zadevi Coloroll Pension Trustees (C-200/91, Recueil, str. I-4389).
In those circumstances, the Bayerisches Verwaltungsgericht München decided to stay proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:
V teh okoli�činah je Bayerisches Verwaltungsgericht München prekinilo odločanje in Sodi�ču v predhodno odločanje predložilo ta vpra�anja:
The first, second and fourth questions
Prvo, drugo in četrto vprašanje
By its first, second and fourth questions, which it is appropriate to answer together, the referring court seeks to know, in essence, whether a survivor’s benefit paid under an occupational pension scheme such as that managed by the VddB falls within the scope of Directive 2000/78.
Predložitveno sodi�če s prvim, drugim in četrtim vpra�anjem, na katera je treba odgovoriti skupaj, v bistvu spra�uje, ali se za izplačilo za preživele osebe, ki je dodeljeno v okviru sistema poklicnega socialnega zavarovanja, kot je ta, ki ga upravlja VddB, uporablja Direktiva 2000/78.
As regards the first and second questions referred, the VddB considers that the scheme managed by it is a statutory social security scheme and that the survivor’s benefit at issue in the main proceedings cannot be regarded as ‘pay’ within the meaning of Article 3(1)(c) of Directive 2000/78.
VddB v zvezi s prvima zastavljenima vpra�anjema meni, da je sistem, ki ga upravlja, zakonit sistem socialne varnosti in da zadevno izplačilo za preživele osebe v postopku v glavni stvari ne more �teti za „plačilo“ v smislu člena 3(1)(c) Direktive 2000/78.
That benefit is therefore outside the scope of that directive.
Ta direktiva naj se torej ne bi uporabljala za to izplačilo.
In support of that position, the VddB states, inter alia, that it is a body governed by public law and is part of the federal State administration and that the pension
VddB v podporo temu stali�ču poudarja predvsem to, da je on subjekt javnega prava, ki je del zvezne uprave, in da je zadevni sistem socialne varnosti v postopku v glavni
The VddB adds that the Collective Agreement has statutory force and was integrated, together with the VddB Regulations, in the unification treaty of 31 August 1990 and that compulsory membership applies to categories of workers defined in general terms.
Dodaja, da ima kolektivna pogodba zakonodajno vrednost in je bila s statutom VddB vključena v pogodbo o združitvi z dne 31. avgusta 1990 in da obveznost zavarovanja pri sistemu obstaja za skupine delavcev, določene na splo�no.
The survivor’s benefit at issue in the main proceedings is not linked directly to specific employment, but to general considerations of social policy.
Zadevno izplačilo za preživele osebe v postopku v glavni stvari naj ne bi bilo neposredno povezano z določeno zaposlitvijo, temveč s splo�nimi socialnimi preudarki.
It does not directly depend on completion of periods of employment and the amount is not determined by reference to the last salary.
Izplačilo naj ne bi bilo neposredno odvisna od opravljenega časa zaposlitve in njen znesek naj ne bi bil izračunan glede na zadnjo plačo.
The Commission considers, on the other hand, that the survivor’s benefit at issue in the main proceedings falls within the scope of Directive 2000/78, since it is paid by virtue of the employment relationship between a person and his employer, a consequence of which is the employee’s compulsory membership of the VddB.
Komisija, nasprotno, meni, da se za zadevno izplačilo za preživele osebe v postopku v glavni stvari uporablja Direktiva 2000/78, ker je določeno na podlagi delovnega razmerja, sklenjenega med določeno osebo in njenim delodajalcem, ki ima za posledico obvezno zavarovanje zaposlenega pri VddB.
The amount of the benefit is determined by reference to the period of insurance and the contributions paid.
Znesek omenjenega izplačila naj bi bil določen glede na dolžino zavarovalnega razmerja in plačanih prispevkov.
According to Mr Maruko, if the Community legislature had wanted to exclude all benefits bound up with civil status from the scope of Directive 2000/78, the content of that recital would have been the subject of a particular provision among the enacting terms of the Directive.
Maruka naj bi bilo besedilo te uvodne izjave povzeto v posebni določbi med členi te direktive, če bi zakonodajalec Skupnosti hotel s področja njene uporabe izvzeti vsa izplačila, vezana na zakonski stan.
According to the Commission, that recital does no more than state that the European Union lacks competence in matters regarding civil status.
Po mnenju Komisije je ta uvodna izjava le izraz nepristojnosti Evropske unije na področju zakonskega stanu.
The VddB and the United Kingdom Government consider, inter alia, that Recital 22 in the preamble to Directive 2000/78 contains a clear and general exclusion and that it determines the scope of the Directive.
VddB in vlada Združenega kraljestva menita predvsem to, da uvodna izjava 22 Direktive 2000/78 vsebuje jasno in splo�no izjemo in da določa področje uporabe te direktive.
The Directive does not apply to provisions of national law relating to civil status or to benefits dependent on that status, such as the survivor’s benefit at issue in the main proceedings.
Ta naj se ne bi uporabljala za določbe nacionalnega prava, ki se nana�ajo na zakonski stan in na izplačila, ki so od njega odvisna, kar naj bi bilo zadevno izplačilo za preživele osebe v postopku v glavni stvari.
It is clear from Article 3(1)(c) and (3) of Directive 2000/78 that the Directive applies to all persons, as regards both the public and private sectors, including public bodies, inter alia, in relation to conditions of pay and that it does not apply to payments of any kind made by state schemes or similar, including state social security or social protection schemes.
Iz člena 3(1)(c) in (3) Direktive 2000/78 izhaja, da se ta direktiva uporablja za vse osebe, bodisi v javnem bodisi v zasebnem sektorju, vključno z javnimi telesi, kar zadeva zlasti pogoje plačila, in da se ne uporablja v zvezi s plačili kakr�ne koli vrste iz državnih programov, vključno s sistemom socialne varnosti ali socialnega zavarovanja.
The scope of Directive 2000/78 must be understood — in the light of those provisions read in conjunction with Recital 13 of the preamble to the Directive — as excluding social security or social protection schemes, the benefits of which are not equivalent to ‘pay’, within the meaning given to that term for the application of Article 141 EC, or to payments of any kind made by the State with the aim of providing access to employment or maintaining employment.
Področje uporabe Direktive 2000/78 je treba razumeti tako – ob upo�tevanju navedenih določb v povezavi z uvodno izjavo 13 te direktive –, da ne zajema sistemov socialnega zavarovanja in socialnega varstva, katerih ugodnosti ne �tejejo za dohodek v smislu opredelitve tega pojma, ki velja pri uporabi člena 141 ES, niti za kakr�na koli izplačila države, katerih cilj je možnost do zaposlitve ali ohranitev zaposlitve.
It must therefore be determined whether a survivor’s benefit granted under an occupational pension scheme such as that managed by the VddB can be treated as equivalent to ‘pay’ within the meaning of Article 141 EC.
Ugotoviti je torej treba, ali se izplačilo za preživele osebe, ki je dodeljeno v okviru sistema socialnega zavarovanja, kot je ta, ki ga upravlja VddB, lahko �teje za „plačilo“ v smislu člena 141 ES.
Article 141 EC provides that ‘pay’ means the ordinary basic or minimum wage or salary and any other consideration, whether in cash or in kind, which the worker receives directly or indirectly, in respect of his employment, from his employer.
Ta člen določa, da plačilo pomeni običajno osnovno ali minimalno mezdo ali plačo ter kakr�ne koli druge prejemke v denarju ali v naravi, ki jih delavec prejme iz naslova zaposlitve neposredno ali posredno od delodajalca.
As the Court has already ruled (see Case C-109/91 Ten Oever [1993] ECR I-4879, paragraph 8, and Case C-7/93 Beune [1994] ECR I-4471, paragraph 21), the fact that
Kot je Sodi�če že odločilo (glej sodbi z dne 6. oktobra 1993 v zadevi Ten Oever, C-109/91, Recueil, str. I-4879, točka 8, in z dne 28. septembra 1994 v zadevi Beune,
The Court has thereby recognised that a survivor’s pension provided for under an occupational pension scheme, set up under a collective agreement, falls within the scope of Article 141 EC.
Sodi�če je tako odločilo, da se ta člen uporablja za vdovsko pokojnino za preživele osebe iz poklicnega pokojninskega sistema, ki je bil ustanovljen s kolektivno pogodbo.