natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In that respect, it should be pointed out that it is for the national court to determine whether the charge at issue in the main proceedings, which it is not denied is based on Article 188 of the Codice Postale, is linked to the exclusive right relating to the public telecommunications service granted to Telecom Italia before the entry into force of Directive 97/13.
V zvezi s tem je treba poudariti, da je nacionalno sodi�če pristojno za ugotavljanje, ali je zadevna pristojbina v postopku v glavni stvari, ki nedvomno temelji na členu 188 po�tnega zakonika, povezana z izključno pravico v zvezi z javnimi telekomunikacijskimi storitvami, ki jo je imela družba Telecom Italia pred začetkom veljavnosti Direktive 97/13.
Assuming that a charge such as the charge at issue in the main proceedings is not linked to an exclusive right granted before the entry into force of Directive 97/13, it must be examined whether such a charge constitutes an obligation within the meaning of Article 22(3) of that directive, eligible for the derogation laid down in that provision.
Če bi domnevali, da denarna dajatev, kakr�na je ta pristojbina, ni povezana z izključno pravico, ki je obstajala pred začetkom veljavnosti Direktive 97/13, je treba preučiti, ali taka dajatev predstavlja obveznost v smislu člena 22(3) te direktive in je upravičena do odstopanja od te določbe.
The latter notion refers only to the advantages granted to the undertaking in its interest, whereas the word ‘obligations’ includes the charges imposed on undertakings, including those imposed, as in the case in the main proceedings, solely in the financial interest of the Member State concerned, irrespective of the ‘terms’ of the authorisation.
Slednji naj bi se nana�al le na prednosti, ki se podjetju odobrijo v njegovem interesu, medtem ko naj bi pojem „obveznosti“ zajemal dajatve, ki se naložijo podjetjem – vključno s to, ki je bila naložena v postopku v glavni stvari – v izključnem finančnem interesu zadevne države članice, neodvisno od „pogojev“, določenih v dovoljenju.
That analysis cannot, however, be accepted.
Te analize ni mogoče sprejeti.
First, according to the scheme of Article 22(2) and (3), and the use of the word ‘terms’, in particular in Articles 3, 4 and 8 of Directive 97/13 read in conjunction with the annex thereto, in order to describe the conditions which may be attached to authorisations, that word covers the notion of ‘obligations’ within the meaning of Article 22(3) of that directive.
Prvič, iz sheme omenjenega člena 22(2) in (3) ter tudi iz izraza „pogoji“, ki je zlasti v členih 3, 4 in 8 Direktive 97/13 v povezavi s prilogo k tej direktivi uporabljen za opis pogojev, ki se lahko vežejo na dovoljenja, izhaja, da omenjeni izraz zajema pojem „obveznosti“ v smislu člena 22(3) te direktive.
The conditions which may be attached to authorisations as set out in the annex to that directive cover many obligations, including the condition in point 4.3 of that annex, relating to environmental and town and country planning requirements.
Pogoji, ki se lahko vežejo na dovoljenja, kot so opisani v prilogi k direktivi, tako zajemajo �tevilne obveznosti, med njimi pogoj iż točke 4.3 priloge o zahtevah na področju okolja, urbanizma in prostorskega načrtovanja.
Secondly, only Articles 6 and 11 of Directive 97/13 deal with the charges applicable to undertakings which hold authorisations in the telecommunications services sector (see, to that effect, Albacom and Infostrada, cited above, paragraph 26).
Spomniti je treba, drugič, da denarne dajatve, ki jih je mogoče naložiti imetnikom dovoljenj na področju telekomunikacijskih storitev, urejata le člena 6 in 11 Direktive 97/13 (glej, v tem smislu, zgoraj navedeno sodbo Albacom in Infostrada, točka 26).
As to individual licences, Article 11(1) of that directive provides that the fees imposed by the Member States on undertakings which hold those licences seek only to cover the administration costs generated by the work involved in implementing those licences (Albacom and Infostrada, paragraph 25, and Joined Cases C-392/04 and C-422/04 i-21 Germany [2006] ECR I-8559, paragraph 28).
Kar zadeva posamične licence, člen 11(1) določa, da je edini namen dajatev, ki jih države članice naložijo podjetjem, ki so imetniki teh licenc, kritje administrativnih stro�kov, vezanih na delo, ki je potrebno za pripravo teh licenc (zgoraj navedena sodba Albacom in Infostrada, točka 25, in sodba z dne 19. septembra 2006 v združenih zadevah i-21 Germany, C-392/04 in C-422/04, ZOdl., str.
The same consideration applies to the fees imposed by the Member States for general authorisations pursuant to Article 6 of Directive 97/13, which provides in addition for only one other form of financial contribution, namely contributions to the provision of universal service.
I-8559, točka 28). Enako velja za dajatve, ki jih države članice naložijo iz naslova splo�nih dovoljenj na podlagi člena 6 Direktive 97/13, ki med drugim določa le �e eno obliko finančnih prispevkov, in sicer tiste, ki so povezani s ponujanjem univerzalnih storitev.
Accordingly, the notion of ‘conditions attached to authorisations’ within the meaning of Directive 97/13 covers different rights and obligations without, however, covering charges imposed on telecommunications undertakings which hold authorisations.
Pojem „pogoji, povezani z dovoljenji“ v smislu Direktive 97/13 tako zajema različne pravice in obveznosti, ne vključuje pa denarnih dajatev, naloženih telekomunikacijskim podjetjem, imetnikom dovoljenj.
It follows that the word ‘obligations’ within the meaning of Article 22(3) of Directive 97/13 does not cover a pecuniary charge, such as the charge at issue in the main proceedings, which is imposed on a telecommunications undertaking without any link to the conditions of exercise of the authorisation granted to it, for the sole purpose of assisting financially the Member State concerned.
Iz tega izhaja, da izraz „obveznosti“ v smislu člena 22(3) Direktive 97/13 ne zajema denarne obveznosti, kakr�na je zadevna pristojbina v postopku v glavni stvari, ki bi se telekomunikacijskemu podjetju naložila brez povezave s pogoji za izvajanje dovoljenja, ki ga je pridobilo, in zgolj z namenom finančne pomoči zadevni državi članici.
Having regard to the foregoing considerations, the answer to the question referred must be that Articles 6, 11, 22 and 25 of Directive 97/13 preclude a Member State from requiring an operator, formerly the holder of an exclusive right to provide public telecommunications services and then the holder of a general authorisation, to pay a pecuniary charge such as the charge in the main proceedings, corresponding to the amount previously demanded for that exclusive right, for one year from the final date laid down for transposition of that directive into national law, namely 31 December 1998.
Ob upo�tevanju zgoraj navedenega je treba na zastavljeno vpra�anje odgovoriti, da členi 6, 11, 22 in 25 Direktive 97/13 nasprotujejo temu, da država članica od nekdanjega imetnika izključne pravice za ponujanje javnih telekomunikacijskih storitev, ki je nato postal imetnik splo�nega dovoljenja, zahteva plačilo denarne dajatve, kakr�na je zadevna pristojbina v postopku v glavni stvari, ki ustreza znesku, ki ga je nekdaj zahtevala kot protidajatev za izključno pravico, in sicer to zahteva za eno leto od dne, določenega kot skrajni rok za prenos te direktive v nacionalno pravo, oziroma do 31. decembra 1998.
Articles 6, 11, 22 and 25 of Directive 97/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 April 1997 on a common framework for general authorisations and individual licences in the field of telecommunications services preclude a Member State from requiring an operator, formerly the holder of an exclusive right to provide public telecommunications services and then the holder of a general authorisation, to pay a pecuniary charge such as the charge in the main proceedings, corresponding to the amount previously demanded for that exclusive right, for one year from the final date laid down for transposition of that directive into national law, namely 31 December 1998.
Členi 6, 11, 22 in 25 Direktive Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta 97/13/ES z dne 10. aprila 1997 o skupnem okviru za splošna dovoljenja in posamične licence na področju telekomunikacijskih storitev nasprotujejo temu, da država članica od nekdanjega imetnika izključne pravice za ponujanje javnih telekomunikacijskih storitev, ki je nato postal imetnik splošnega dovoljenja, zahteva plačilo denarne dajatve, kakršna je zadevna pristojbina v postopku v glavni stvari, ki ustreza znesku, ki ga je nekdaj zahtevala kot protidajatev za izključno pravico, in sicer to zahteva za eno leto od dne, določenega kot skrajni rok za prenos te direktive v nacionalno pravo, oziroma do 31. decembra 1998.
Case C-348/06 P
Zadeva C-348/06 P
(Appeal — Temporary staff — Action for damages — Loss of an opportunity to be recruited — Actual and certain damage — Determination of extent of reparation for damage)
„Pritožba – Začasni uslužbenec – Od�kodninska tožba – Izguba možnosti za zaposlitev – Dejanska in gotova �koda – Določitev obsega �kode“
Opinion of Advocate General Mengozzi delivered on 22 November 2007 . .
Mengozzija, predstavljeni 22. novembra 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I - 836
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber), 21 February 2008 . . . . . . .
Sodba Sodi�ča (tretji senat) z dne 21. februarja 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . I - 863
Officials — Actions — Unlimited jurisdiction — Reparation for material damage arising from the loss of a chance as a result of unlawful rejection of a candidature
Uradniki – Tožba – Neomejena pristojnost – Povrnitev premoženjske škode, povezane z izgubo možnosti zaradi nezakonite zavrnitve prijave
SUMMARY — CASE C-348/06 P
POVZETEK – ZADEVA C-348/06 P
Appeals — Grounds — Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the Court of First Instance — Inadmissibility
Pritožba – Razlogi – Razlogi in trditve, predstavljeni pred Sodiščem prve stopnje, ki jih je stranka samo ponovila – Nedopustnost
(Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 112(1)(c))
(člen 225 ES; Statut Sodišča, člen 58; Poslovnik Sodišča, člen 112(1)(c))
being recruited in order to weight that loss, necessarily leads the Community judicature to rely on a series of suppositions, by their nature uncertain, but which fall within that appraisal of the facts by the Court of First Instance and the discretion at its disposal.
plačilom in nato v obliki odstotka oceni možnost, ki jo je začasni uslužbenec imel, da bi bil izbran, ter nazadnje ponderira to izgubo, nujno povzroča, da se mora sodi�če Skupnosti nasloniti na vrsto negotovih hipotez, ki pa spadajo pod neodvisno presojo dejstev, ki jo je opravilo Sodi�če prve stopnje, in pod diskrecijsko pravico, s katero to razpolaga.
Under Article 91(1) of the Staff Regulations, the Court of First Instance has, in disputes of a financial character, unlimited jurisdiction, pursuant to which it has the power, if need be of its own motion, to order the defendant to pay compensation for the damage caused by the defendant’s wrongful act and, in such a case, taking account of the circumstances of the case, to assess the damage suffered ex aequo et bono.
Ko je Sodi�ču prve stopnje predložen spor finančne narave, ima na podlagi člena 91(1) Kadrovskih predpisov neomejeno pristojnost, v okviru katere lahko toženi stranki, če je to potrebno, naloži plačilo od�kodnine za �kodo, ki jo je ta povzročila, in v takem primeru ob upo�tevanju vseh okoli�čin zadeve oceni ex aequo et bono utrpljeno �kodo.
In addition, when the Court of First Instance has determined that there is damage, it alone has jurisdiction to decide, within the confines of the claim and subject to compliance with the obligation to state reasons, how and to what extent reparation for the damage should be provided.
Poleg tega je Sodi�če prve stopnje, ko ugotovi obstoj �kode, edino pristojno, da v okviru zahtevka in ob spo�tovanju obveznosti obrazložitve oceni način in obseg nadomestila te �kode.
(see paras 45, 58, 59, 61, 62, 64, 72-74)
(Glej točke 45, 58, 59, 61, 62, 64 in od 72 do 74.)
In that regard, the method used to determine the extent of reparation for the damage resulting from the loss of a chance for a member of the temporary staff whose candidature has been unlawfully rejected of being recruited to a post within a Community institution, adopted in the domestic law of several Member States, based on a criterion relating to loss of earnings, establishing the difference between the earnings aspired to and the earnings actually received, then assessing, as a percentage, the chance of
Glede določitve obsega nadomestila za �kodo zaradi izgube možnosti začasnega uslužbenca, katerega prijava je bila nezakonito zavrnjena, za zaposlitev v instituciji Skupnosti, zatekanje k metodi, ki je sprejeta v več nacionalnih pravnih sistemih in ki temelji na merilu izgube plačila, tako da se določi razlika med pričakovanim in dejansko prejetim
It follows from Article 225 EC, the first paragraph of Article 58 of the Statute of the Court of Justice and Article 112(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice that an appeal must indicate precisely the contested elements of the judgment which the appellant seeks to have set aside and also the legal arguments specifically advanced in support of the appeal.
Iz členov 225 ES, 58, prvi odstavek, Statuta Sodi�ča in 112(1)(c) Poslovnika Sodi�ča izhaja, da je treba v pritožbi jasno navesti izpodbijane elemente sodbe, katere razveljavitev je predlagana, ter pravne trditve, ki posebej utemeljujejo ta predlog.
COMMISSION v GIRARDOT assessment of facts which that Court undertook in that judgment.
KOMISIJA PROTI GIRARDOT novih dokazov, presojo dejanskega stanja tega sodi�ča v izpodbijani sodbi.
That requirement is not satisfied by an appeal which seeks not to identify errors of law allegedly vitiating the reasoning of the Court of First Instance in the judgment under appeal but rather, by repeating arguments relied on at first instance and putting forward supposed new evidence, seeks to challenge the
Te zahteve ne izpolnjuje pritožba, s katero se ne predlaga, naj se ugotovi obstoj pravnih napak, ki naj bi jih vsebovalo razlogovanje Sodi�ča prve stopnje v izpodbijani tožbi, temveč se izpodbija, po eni strani z navajanjem trditev, na katere se je sklicevala na prvi stopnji, po drugi strani pa s predložitvijo domnevno
(see paras 88, 91)
(Glej točki 88 in 91.)
MENGOZZIdelivered on 22 November 2007
SKLEPNI PREDLOGI GENERALNEGA PRAVOBRANILCAPAOLA MENGOZZIJA, predstavljeni 22. novembra 2007 1
Article 29(1) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities (‘the Staff Regulations’), in the version applicable to the facts giving rise to the dispute at first instance, provides that:
V členu 29(1) Kadrovskih predpisov za uradnike Evropskih skupnosti (v nadaljevanju: Kadrovski predpisi), v različici, veljavni v času postopka na prvi stopnji, je določeno:
In this case, the Court is required to give a ruling in an appeal brought by the Commission of the European Communities against the judgment delivered on 6 June 2006 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-10/02 Girardot v Commission [2006] ECR-SC I-A-2-129 and II-A-2-609 (‘the judgment under appeal’), by which the latter set the amount of financial compensation payable by the Commission to Ms Girardot following the interim judgment of the Court of First Instance of 31 March 2004 in Case T-10/02 Girardot v Commission [2004] ECR-SC I-A-109 and II-483 (‘the interim judgment’).
V tej zadevi naj se Sodi�če izreče o pritožbi Komisije Evropskih skupnosti zoper sodbo Sodi�ča prve stopnje Evropskih skupnosti z dne 6. junija 2006 v zadevi Girardot proti Komisiji (T-10/02, ZOdl., JU, str. I-A-2-129 in II-A-2-609, v nadaljevanju: izpodbijana sodba), s katero je to določilo znesek denarne od�kodnine, ki jo je Komisija dolgovala M.-C. Girardot na podlagi vmesne sodbe Sodi�ča prve stopnje z dne 31. marca 2004 v zadevi Girardot proti Komisiji (T-10/02, RecFP, str.
(a) whether the post can be filled by promotion or transfer within the institutions;
I-A-109 in II-483, v nadaljevanju: vmesna sodba).
(b) whether to hold competitions internal to the institution;
I – Pravni okvir b) ali se izvedejo notranji natečaji v instituciji;
Under Article 236 EC, the Court of Justice is to have jurisdiction in any dispute between the Community and its servants within the limits and under the conditions laid down in the Staff Regulations or the Conditions of Employment.
Kot je določeno v členu 236 ES, je Sodi�če v mejah in pod pogoji, ki so določeni v kadrovskih predpisih ali v pogojih za zaposlitev, pristojno za vse spore med Skupnostjo in svojimi uslužbenci.
(c) what applications for transfer have been made by officials of other institutions of the three European Communities;
c) kak�ne pro�nje za premestitev so vložili uradniki drugih institucij treh Evropskih skupnosti;
Article 47 of the Conditions of Employment provides: and then follow the procedure for competitions on the basis either of qualifications or of tests, or of both qualifications and tests.
V členu 47 PZDU je določeno: in nato uporabi natečajne postopke na podlagi bodisi kvalifikacij ali preizkusov ali na podlagi obojih.
‘Apart from cessation on death, the employment of temporary staff shall cease:
„Delovno razmerje začasnega uslužbenca preneha zaradi smrti in:
The procedure may likewise be followed for the purpose of constituting a reserve for future recruitment.’
Postopek se lahko uporabi tudi za oblikovanje rezerve za bodoče zaposlovanje.“
Where the contract is for an indefinite period:
(2) pri pogodbi za nedoločen čas: a)
Article 2(d) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities (‘the Conditions of Employment’), in the version applicable to the facts giving rise to the dispute at first instance, provides that for the purposes of those Conditions of Employment, ‘temporary staff’ means ‘staff engaged to fill temporarily a permanent post paid from research and investment appropriations and included in the list of posts appended to the budget relating to the institution concerned’.
V členu 2(d) Pogojev za zaposlitev drugih uslužbencev Evropskih skupnosti (v nadaljevanju: PZDU), v različici, veljavni v času postopka na prvi stopnji, je določeno, da začasni uslužbenec v teh pogojih pomeni „uslužbenca, ki se za določen čas zaposli na stalnem delovnem mestu, plačanem iz odobrenih proračunskih sredstev za raziskave in naložbe in vključenem v seznam delovnih mest, ki je priložen proračunu za zadevno institucijo“.
at the end of the period of notice stipulated in the contract… In the case of a servant within the meaning of Article 2 [(d) of the Conditions of Employment] the period of notice shall not be less than one month for each completed year of service, subject to a minimum of three months and a maximum of 10 months …;
ob koncu odpovednega roka, določenega v pogodbi […]. Za uslužbence v smislu člena 2 [(d) PZDU] odpovedni rok ne sme biti kraj�i od enega meseca za vsako dopolnjeno leto dela, pri čemer je najkraj�i rok tri mesece in najdalj�i deset mesecev […] b) ob koncu meseca, v katerem uradnik dopolni 65 let starosti.“
The fourth and fifth paragraphs of Article 8 of the Conditions of Employment provide, in particular, that temporary staff in Category A or B to whom Article 2(d) of the Conditions of Employment applies, who are required to perform duties necessitating scientific or technical qualifications, are to be engaged for not more than five years and that their contracts may be renewed only once for a fixed period.
V členu 8(4) in (5) PZDU je določeno zlasti, da se začasni uslužbenci iz kategorije A ali B, za katere se uporablja člen 2(d) PZDU in ki opravljajo delo, za katero se zahteva znanstvena ali tehnična usposobljenost, zaposlijo za največ pet let ter da se njihove pogodbe lahko obnovijo le enkrat za določen čas.
Any further renewal is to be for an indefinite period.
Vsaka naslednja obnovitev je za nedoločen čas.
Cases of termination without notice are defined in Articles 48 to 50 of the Conditions of Employment.
Primeri odpovedi pogodbe brez odpovednega roka so določeni v členih od 48 do 50 PZDU.
According to the account of the facts by the Court of First Instance, Ms Girardot entered the service of the Commission on 1 February 1996 as a seconded national expert.
V skladu z rekonstrukcijo dejanskega stanja, ki jo je opravilo Sodi�če prve stopnje, je M.-C. Girardot nastopila delo pri Komisiji 1. februarja 1996 kot napoteni nacional -ni strokovnjak. Ta status je ohranila do 31. januarja 1999.
On 9 and 12 February 2001, the ‘Personnel and Administration’ Directorate-General published two vacancy notices for permanent posts remunerated on research credits.
Generalni direktorat Kadrovske zadeve in administracija je 9. in 12. februarja 2001 objavil dve prosti stalni delovni mesti, ki sta plačani iz odobrenih proračunskih sredstev za raziskave.
By letter of 20 February 2001, Ms Girardot expressed her interest in a Category A post, published in vacancy notice COM/2001/CCR/16/R of 9 February 2001 and also in seven other Category A posts, published in the vacancy notice of 12 February 2001.
M.-C. Girardot je v dopisu z dne 20. februarja 2001 izrazila zanimanje, na eni strani, za delovno mesto kategorije A, ki je bilo objavljeno 9. februarja 2001 z oznako COM/2001/CCR/16/R, in, na drugi strani, za sedem drugih delovnih mest kategorije A, ki so bila objavljena 12. februarja 2001.
By contract of 15 January 1999, concluded for a period of two years and subsequently renewed by means of a supplementary agreement for a period of one year, Ms Girardot was employed as a member of the temporary staff within the meaning of Article 2(d) of the Conditions of Employment.
S pogodbo z dne 15. januarja 1999, ki je bila sklenjena za dve leti in kasneje obnovljena za eno leto s sporazumom, ki dopolnjuje pogodbo, se je M.-C. Girardot zaposlila kot začasna uslužbenka v smislu člena 2(d) PZDU.
In that capacity, she was transferred successively to the ‘Industry’ Directorate-General and then to the ‘Information Society’ Directorate-General of the Commission.
Na podlagi tega je bila najprej razporejena v generalni direktorat Komisije Industrija in nato v generalni direktorat Komisije Informacijska družba.
However, that point is of no significance in this case, since it is common ground that the absence of any consideration of comparative merits (or in any event the failure to demonstrate that such an examination had been carried out) which was condemned by the Court of First Instance in its interim judgment was in part based on the fact that Ms Girardot was not a successful candidate in that competition, a fact which is not open to any doubt.
Vendar ta točka ni bistvena v okviru te zadeve, ker je gotovo, da se je neizvedba primerjalne ocene uspe�nosti (ali v vsakem primeru neobstoj dokaza, da je bila taka ocena izvedena), ki jo je grajala vmesna sodba Sodi�ča prve stopnje, delno opirala na dejstvo, da M.-C. Girardot ni uspe�no opravila tega natečaja, kar pa je nedvomno dejstvo.
On 26 July 2000, the ‘Personnel and Administration’ Directorate-General of the Commission published a vacancy notice stating that, in the context of its decision on the new policy on research staff, the Commission was organising ‘internal reserve competitions’, which included ‘internal reserve competition’ COM/T/R/ST/A/2000 for career brackets A8/A5, A4 and A3 of Category A remunerated on credits of the
Generalni direktorat Komisije Kadrovske zadeve in administracija je 26. julija 2000 objavil prosta delovna mesta in sporočil, da organizira v okviru odločitve o novi politiki osebja v raziskovalni dejavnosti (NPOR) notranje natečaje za oblikovanje rezervnega seznama, v tem primeru notranji natečaj za oblikovanje rezervnega seznama COM/T/R/ST/A/2000 v zvezi s kariernimi nazivi A 8/A 5, A 4 in A 3 kategorije A, ki so plačani iz odobrenih proračunskih sredstev za znanost in tehniko proračuna za raziskave in naložbe.
COMMISSION v GIRARDOT rejecting her application and, as a corollary, accepting that of the other candidates. 3
KOMISIJA PROTI GIRARDOT prijavo in posledično potrdila prijave drugih kandidatov. 3