natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Moreover, it can also be observed that in cases such as the present one, where the subject of the dispute is a legislative act, the possibility that the pre-litigation procedure might lead to a beneficial outcome is, in reality, entirely theoretical.
Dodam naj �e, da so v tak�nih primerih, kakr�en je zadevni, v katerih je predmet spora akt zakonodajne narave, možnosti, da bo uporabna re�itev podana že v predhodnem postopku, dejansko zgolj teoretične.
19 — On that right, see, for example, Case C-432/05 Unibet [2007] ECR I-2271, paragraph 37, and the caselaw cited.
19 – V zvezi s to pravico glej na primer sodbo z dne 13. marca 2007 v zadevi Unibet (C-432/05, ZOdl., str. I-2271, točka 37, in tam navedena sodna praksa).
Moreover, he considers that the ‘country method’ is of itself contrary to the principle of equal treatment, as it penalises all pensioners living in the capital and, more generally, in the parts of a State where the cost of living is higher than the average for that State.
Poleg tega naj bi bila „metoda države“ že sama po sebi v nasprotju z načelom enakega obravnavanja.
In addition, the ‘country method’
Pritožnik trdi, da so z uporabo tega načina o�kodovani vsi upokojenci, ki imajo prebivali�če v glavnem mestu, in na splo�no vsi, ki živijo v tistih predelih države, kjer so življenjski stro�ki vi�ji od povprečnih
also effectively impedes the freedom of movement and residence within the territory of the Community.
„Metoda države“ naj bi omejevala tudi pravico prostega gibanja in prebivanja na ozemlju Skupnosti.
In his view, recital 30 in the preamble to Regulation No 723/2004, in providing reasons for the legislature’s decision to abolish the system of correction coefficients for the pensions of former officials of the Communities, sets out from an extremely dubious assumption of soundness, since integration between the Member States allows significant differences to remain between them as regards the cost of living.
V obrazložitvi svoje odločitve, da je treba preseči sistem korekcijskih koeficientov za izračun pokojnin nekdanjih uradnikov, podani v trideseti uvodni izjavi Uredbe �t. 723/2004, naj bi se zakonodajalec Skupnosti oprl na izhodi�če dvomljive veljavnosti, saj naj bi med posameznimi državami članicami kljub povezovanju Evropske unije �e naprej obstajale znatne razlike glede življenjskih stro�kov.
The Council, like the Commission, disputes above all that the judgment of the Court of First Instance can be interpreted as meaning that it places the discretion of the legislature above observance of the principle of equal treatment.
Svet, tako kot Komisija, predvsem zanika, da bi bilo mogoče sodbo Sodi�ča prve stopnje razlagati v smislu, da daje prednost diskrecijski pravici zakonodajalca pred načelom enakega obravnavanja.
In particular, in the opinion of the Council, the appellant confuses the principle of equal treatment with the principle of equality of purchasing power.
Po mnenju Sveta naj bi pritožnik pome�al načeli enakega obravnavanja in enakovredne kupne moči.
According to the Council, paragraph 105 of the judgment under appeal refers not to the principle of equal treatment in general but simply to the principle of equality of purchasing power.
V točki 105 izpodbijane sodbe naj se Sodi�če prve stopnje ne bi nana�alo na splo�no načelo enakega obravnavanja, temveč le na načelo enakovredne kupne moči.
The Commission states that, in its view, the appellant’s plea gives a distorted interpretation of the line of argument of the Court of First Instance.
Komisija trdi, da naj bi bil ta pritožnikov razlog rezultat izkrivljene razlage argumentov Sodi�ča prve stopnje.
In particular, the Court of First Instance did not assert the supremacy of the legislature’s discretion over the principle of equality but merely observed that the transition from the ‘capital method’ to the ‘country method’ did not entail an arbitrary or manifestly inappropriate distinction that infringed the principle of equal treatment.
To naj ne bi nikjer trdilo, da ima diskrecijska pravica zakonodajalca prednost pred načelom enakega obravnavanja, temveč naj bi ugotovilo le, da nadomestitev „metode glavnega mesta“ z „metodo države“ ni privedla do samovoljnega ali očitno neprimernega razlikovanja in posledično do kr�itve načela enakega obravnavanja.
The main issue to be addressed in order to answer this argument is to determine whether the Community legislature’s decision to introduce the ‘country method’ in place of the ‘capital method’ for calculating the correction coefficients for the pensions of former officials of the Communities constitutes a legitimate exercise of the discretion conferred upon the legislature in this matter or whether the principle of equal treatment has thereby been infringed.
Glavno vpra�anje, na katero je treba odgovoriti v zvezi s to trditvijo, je, ali je zakonodajalec Skupnosti s tem, da je spremenil metodo za določanje korekcijskih koeficientov pokojnin nekdanjih uradnikov Skupnosti tako, da je „metodo glavnega mesta“ nadomestil z „metodo države“, ravnal zakonito in v okviru diskrecijskih pravic, ali pa je s tem kr�il načelo enakega obravnavanja.
As regards the substance of the appellant’s observations on the alleged difference in treatment between pensioners according to their place of residence, the Commission observes that the ‘capital method’ also results in a difference in treatment, benefiting pensioners living outside the capital by guaranteeing them a higher correction coefficient
Glede pritožnikovih navedb v zvezi z domnevno neenakim obravnavanjem upokojencev glede na kraj prebivali�ča pa Komisija odgovarja, da tudi „metoda glavnega mesta“ ni zagotavljala enake obravnave, saj so imeli ob upo�tevanju te prednost upokojenci s prebivali�čem zunaj glavnega mesta, za izračun njihovih pokojnin se je namreč
CAMPOLI v COMMISSION expensive areas in the State: however, since a single correction coefficient must be chosen for each Member State, the ‘country method’ is, in my view, not only entirely legitimately practicable but also in some respects more equitable .
CAMPOLI PROTI KOMISIJI te države: kljub temu menim, da je „metoda države“ za določanje enotnega korekcijskega koeficienta za vsako posamezno državo članico ne le zakonita, temveč z določenih vidikov tudi pravičnej�a.
for adjusting salaries and/or pensions) is by its very nature necessarily imprecise.
prilagajanja prejemkov in/ali pokojnin) že po naravi nujno nenatančen.
As the Court of First Instance rightly observed, 20 in order to be truly precise, the system would have to contemplate a specific correction coefficient for each place where former officials of the Communities live.
Kot je pravilno ugotovilo Sodi�če prve stopnje, 20bi bil sistem zares natančen le, če bi upo�teval poseben korekcijski koeficient za vsak posamezen kraj prebivali�ča nekdanjih uradnikov Skupnosti.
Even different districts within the same city would probably, in many cases, have to be assessed separately, with different coefficients being applied on the basis of the respective cost of living.
Pri tem se življenjski stro�ki razlikujejo tudi znotraj enega samega mesta, zato bi bilo treba v �tevilnih primerih upo�tevati posebne korekcijske koeficiente tudi za posamezne mestne četrti.
The appellant emphasises that, in his opinion, the ‘country method’ does not comply with the principle of equal treatment and therefore acts as a discriminatory criterion.
Pritožnik opozarja, da po njegovem mnenju „metoda države“ ne upo�teva načela enakega obravnavanja, ker temelji na diskriminatornem merilu.
His underlying idea is clearly that, in practice, only the ‘capital method’ avoids possible criticism based on the prohibition of discrimination.
Stali�če, ki ga zagovarja, je, da se je očitkom, ki izhajajo iz načela prepovedi diskriminacije, dejansko mogoče izogniti le z uporabo „metode glavnega mesta“.
It is therefore inevitable that, whatever system is chosen, it can at best constitute a reasonable approximation of the actual cost of living borne by each former official.
Neizogibno dejstvo je, da bo tak�en sistem, ne glede na to, katerega izberemo, omogočil kvečjemu dovolj razumno upo�tevanje približno ocenjenih življenjskih stro�kov vsakega posameznega uradnika.
I do not think that this is the place for a detailed examination of the principles of equality and the prohibition of discrimination in the context of Community law.
Menim, da v teh okoli�činah podrobna obravnava načel enakosti in prepovedi diskriminacije v okviru pravnega reda Skupnosti ni potrebna.
21As I have already pointed out, a guarantee of absolute parity in terms of purchasing power among all former officials of the Communities would be utterly impossible to achieve.
21Kot sem že opozoril, bi bilo namreč glede kupne moči nemogoče zagotoviti absolutno enako obravnavo vsem nekdanjim uradnikom Skupnosti.
I therefore consider that the Court of First Instance could legitimately assert that, within the scope of the discretion enjoyed by the Community legislature to organise the pension scheme of former officials, the decision to use the ‘country method’ instead of
Zato menim, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje pravilno ugotovilo, da odločitev zakonodajalca Skupnosti glede nadomestitve „metode glavnega mesta“ z „metodo države“, ki jo je sprejel v okviru svoje diskrecijske pravice na področju organizacije
Viewed in that light, it seems perfectly plain to me that both the ‘capital method’ and the ‘country method’ have advantages and disadvantages.
Ob upo�tevanju tega je torej očitno, da imata tako „metoda glavnega mesta“ kot „metoda države“ svoje prednosti in slabosti.
For example, although it is true that the ‘capital method’ tends to give better protection to those living in the cap -itals and major cities, at the same time it gives those living outside such cities much better actual economic treatment, in real terms, because of the lower cost of living in the provinces.
Če je na primer res, da je „metoda glavnega mesta“ za tiste, ki živijo v prestolnicah ali večjih mestih, ugodnej�a, je hkrati res tudi, da zagotavlja ta metoda upokojencem, ki živijo zunaj teh mest, razmeroma bolj�i ekonomski položaj, saj so življenjski stro�ki v kraju njihovega prebivali�ča dejansko nižji.
On the other hand, the ‘country method’, which uses a coefficient that tends to be somewhere between the cost of living in the capital and that in less ‘expensive’ parts of the Member State, may to some extent penalise residents of the more
Po drugi strani so z uporabo „metode države“, ki upo�teva korekcijski koeficient, določen na podlagi povprečja med stro�ki življenja v glavnem mestu in stro�ki v „manj dragih“ predelih države članice, v določeni meri o�kodovani prebivalci dražjih krajev
For the Community public employment sector, see, for example, Case 119/83 Appelbaum v Commission [1985] ECR 2423 and Joined Cases T-18/89 and T-24/89 Tagaras v Court of Justice [1991] ECR II-53, paragraph 68.
2423) in sodbo Sodi�ča prve stopnje z dne 7. februarja 1991 v združenih zadevah Tagaras proti Sodi�ču Evropskih skupnosti (T-18/89 in T-24/89, Recueil, str. II-53, točka 68).
20 — The judgment under appeal, paragraph 100.
20 – Izpodbijana sodba, točka 100.
In his criticism of the judgment under appeal, the appellant focuses in particular on paragraph 105 thereof, maintaining that it indicates that the Court of First Instance considered that the discretion granted to the legislature takes precedence over the principle of equality.
Pritožnikovi očitki zoper izpodbijano sodbo se osredotočajo zlasti na točko 105 te sodbe, saj naj bi iz te izhajalo, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje diskrecijski pravici, priznani zakonodajalcu, dalo prednost pred načelom enakega obravnavanja.
The text of paragraph 105 reads as follows: limitation on the introduction of a difference in treatment.
Besedilo točke 105 se glasi: obdobje.
In fact, paragraph 105 quoted above does not in any way justify the introduction of a difference in treatment.
V navedeni točki 105 uvedbe neenakega obravnavanja z ničemer ne opravičuje.
It merely states that, if a less favourable pension scheme is introduced, the Community legislature is required to provide an adequate transitional period.
Ugotavlja le, da mora zakonodajalec Skupnosti, če uvede glede na obstoječega manj ugoden pokojninski sistem, določiti dovolj dolgo prehodno obdobje.
In this case, the transitional period is provided for in Article 20 of Annex XIII to the new Staff Regulations, under which the changeover from the correction coefficient calculated using the ‘capital method’ to that calculated using the ‘country method’ was to be achieved progressively and gradually between 2004 and 2008.
V zadevnem primeru je bilo to prehodno obdobje predvideno z določbami člena 20 Priloge XIII k novim Kadrovskim predpisom, v skladu s katerimi se prehod od upo�tevanja korekcijskega koeficienta, izračunanega po „metodi glavnega mesta“, do upo�tevanja korekcijskega koeficienta, izračunanega po „metodi države“, izvede postopno in stopenjsko v obdobju med letoma 2004 in 2008.
Moreover, it is significant that the Court of First Instance touched upon this question even earlier than paragraph 105, in the part of the judgment on the alleged infringement of acquired rights (when dealing with a plea in law which the appellant did not repeat in these appeal proceedings).
Poleg tega je pomembno, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje to vpra�anje obravnavalo že v tistem delu sodbe – pred točko 105 –, v katerem je obravnavalo zatrjevano kr�itev načela varstva pridobljenih pravic (v okviru razloga, ki ga pritožnik v tem pritožbenem postopku ne uveljavlja več).
‘Although it is true that, in financial terms, the new method is less advantageous than the previous one, it is also true, as indicated above … in connection with the plea alleging infringement of acquired rights, that the Community legislature is free to amend the Staff Regulations by adopting provisions that are less advantageous for the officials concerned than the previous ones, on condition that it sets a sufficiently long transitional period.
„Čeprav je res, da je nova metoda finančno manj ugodna glede na prej�njo, je res tudi – kot navedeno zgoraj […] v zvezi s presojo očitka, utemeljenega na kr�itvi načela varstva pridobljenih pravic –, da lahko zakonodajalec Skupnosti po prosti presoji spremeni Kadrovske predpise tako, da sprejme določbe, ki so za uradnike manj ugodne od predhodnih, pod pogojem, da določi dovolj dolgo prehodno obdobje.
Nor can that freedom be limited by invoking the principle of equality of purchasing power, particularly as the transitional arrangements laid down in Article 24(2) of Annex XIII to the new Staff Regulations guarantees to pensioners such as the applicant that the nominal amount of the net pension received before the new Staff Regulations came into effect will be maintained for an unlimited period ….’ 22
Tak�ne pravice ni mogoče omejiti s sklicevanjem na načelo enake kupne moči, �e posebej ob upo�tevanju dejstva, da je s predhodno ureditvijo, določeno v členu 24(2) Priloge XIII k novim Kadrovskim predpisom, upokojencem, med katere spada tudi pritožnik, zagotovljeno, da se jim časovno neomejeno zagotovi nominalni znesek neto pokojnine, prejete pred uveljavitvijo novih Kadrovskih predpisov […]“ 22.
I do not share the appellant’s interpretation of the passage I have just quoted.
Ne strinjam se s pritožnikovo razlago navedenega odlomka sodbe.
It seems clear to me that the Court of First Instance did not maintain, as the appellant appears to suggest, that the provision of an adequate transitional period is the only
Očitno se mi namreč zdi, da Sodi�če prve stopnje v nasprotju s pritožnikovimi zatrjevanji ne navaja, da je edini pogoj za uvedbo neenakega obravnavanja dovolj dolgo prehodno
23 — Case T-184/00 [2003] ECR-SC I-A-51 and II-297, confirmed by order of 29 April 2004 in Case C-187/03 P.
23 – Sodba Sodi�ča prve stopnje z dne 26. februarja 2003 (T-184/00, RecFP, str.
22 — The translation of this and all other passages from the judgment under appeal is not official.
I-A-51 in II-297), ki jo je Sodi�če potrdilo s sklepom z dne 29. aprila 2004 (C-187/03 P, neobjavljen v ZOdl.)
CAMPOLI v COMMISSION coefficient for each Member State.
CAMPOLI PROTI KOMISIJI potrdilo pa je tudi zakonitost uporabe enotnega korekcijskega koeficienta za vsako posamezno državo članico.
It did not, however, state that the only mechanism acceptable for determining that correction coefficient was that adopted in the ‘capital method’.
Nikakor pa ni ugotovilo, da je edini sprejemljivi način za določanje tega korekcijskega koeficienta tisti, ki temelji na „metodi glavnega mesta“.
are concentrated, refers to the decision to abolish the system of correction coefficients, which is of no relevance for the purposes of this case, since the abolition does not affect those who, like the appellant, retired before the new Staff Regulations came into effect.
pritožnika, nana�a na odločitev o odpravi sistema korekcijskih koeficientov, ki je za obravnavani primer povsem nepomembna, saj odprava sistema ne prizadeva tistih, ki so se – tako kot pritožnik – upokojili pred uveljavitvijo novih Kadrovskih predpisov.
I therefore consider that the first argument of the single plea in the appeal should not be accepted, since it fails to demonstrate that the Court of First Instance erred in law.
Poleg tega menim, da prvi trditvi edinega pritožbenega razloga ni mogoče ugoditi, ker ne podaja dokaza o tem, da bi Sodi�če prve stopnje nepravilno uporabilo pravo.
The appellant also focuses on recital 30 in the preamble to Regulation No 723/2004, cited at paragraph 8 above, which indicates, as reasons for the decision to abolish the system of correction coefficients, both the need for ever greater integration of the Member States of the Union and practical difficulties in operating the system.
Dalje, pritožnik opira svoje stali�če na zgoraj navedeno (točka 8) trideseto uvodno izjavo Uredbe �t. 723/2004, v kateri je pojasnjeno, da so razlogi, ki narekujejo odpravo zastarelega sistema korekcijskih koeficientov, vse tesnej�e povezovanje držav članic Evropske unije in težave, povezane z izvajanjem tega sistema v praksi.
The appellant claims this to be both wrong, since, in his view, European integration is still far from being achieved, and contradictory, since he considers that the increased freedom of movement referred to in that recital should lead to a more appropriate system of cor -rection coefficients so as to permit more effective freedom of movement.
Pritožnik trdi, da je tak�no sklepanje napačno – saj postopek evropske integracije �e zdaleč ni zaključen – pa tudi protislovno, glede na to, da bi moral razvoj prostega gibanja oseb, poudarjen v navedeni uvodni izjavi, spremljati tudi primeren sistem korekcijskih koeficientov, ki bi prosto gibanje dejansko omogočal.
D — Discrimination in pensioners living in Belgium
D – Diskriminatorno obravnavanje v primerjavi z upokojenci, ki prebivajo v Belgiji
The Commission submits that such considerations are inadmissible, both because they relate to considerations of fact and as such are outside the purview of the Court of Justice in an appeal, and because they were raised for the first time in the appeal before the Court.
Komisija trdi, da so te trditve nedopustne bodisi zato, ker temeljijo na ugotovitvah v zvezi z dejanskim stanjem, kar pa ni predmet nadzora Sodi�ča v okviru pritožbenega postopka, bodisi zato, ker so prvič predlagane �ele v pritožbenem postopku pred Sodi�čem.
In my opinion, it is far simpler than this, however; the reference to recital 30 in the preamble to Regulation No 723/2004 is irrelevant, since it relates only partly to the situation of the appellant.
Po mojem mnenju pa je pritožnikovo sklicevanje na trideseto uvodno izjavo Uredbe 723/2004 neupo�tevno preprosto zato, ker se ta samo deloma nana�a na pritožnikov položaj.
It is clear, in my opinion, that the first sentence of that recital, on which the appellant’s criticisms
Očitno je namreč, da se prvi stavek te izjave, na katerega se osredotočajo očitki
Reiterating the third argument raised before the Court of First Instance maintaining that the principle of equal treatment had been infringed, the appellant claims discrimination in relation to pensioners living in Belgium, who allegedly continue to enjoy a pension adjusted to the cost of living in Brussels.
Pritožnik s to trditvijo, ki sovpada s tretjo trditvijo, predlagano v postopku pred Sodi�čem prve stopnje, utemeljuje, da je skupina nekdanjih uradnikov, ki ji pripada, obravnavana diskriminatorno glede na upokojence s prebivali�čem v Belgiji, ki naj bi bili �e naprej upravičeni do prejemkov, primernih glede na življenjske stro�ke v Bruslju.
All the arguments developed by the Court of First Instance in addition to that basic finding are therefore, according to the Commission, superfluous, so that the criticisms directed against them should be dismissed as incapable of altering the conclusions reached in the judgment.
Razlaga, ki jo je Sodi�če prve stopnje razvilo v podporo tej temeljni ugotovitvi, naj bi bila torej odvečna, zato Komisija predlaga, naj Sodi�če vse očitke, s katerimi pritožnik tem trditvam oporeka, zavrne, saj ne morejo vplivati na spremembo sklepov, ki jih je v tej sodbi oblikovalo Sodi�če prve stopnje.
In any event, the Commission maintains, in the alternative, that the additional arguments put forward by the Court of First Instance are correct.
Komisija podredno predlaga ugotovitev, da so tudi dodatne trditve Sodi�ča prve stopnje pravilne.
The Council, for its part, presents essentially the same arguments as the Commission.
Svet navaja trditve, ki so v bistvu enake trditvam Komisije.
In particular, having repeated his interpretation of the Staff Regulations, according to which the pensions of former officials living in Belgium are calculated only on the basis of the cost of living in Brussels, and hence without applying the ‘country method’, the appellant contests the arguments set out by the Court of First Instance at paragraph 124 of the judgment under appeal, where it observes that ‘the legality of a Community regulation cannot depend on the manner in which it is applied in practice’, and at paragraph 125, where it recalls the settled caselaw under which ‘respect for the principle of equal treatment must be reconciled with respect for the principle of legality, according to which a person may not rely, in support of his claim, on an unlawful act committed in favour of a third party’.
Potem ko je opozoril na svojo razlago določb Kadrovskih predpisov, v skladu s katero naj bi bile pokojnine nekdanjih uradnikov s prebivali�čem v Bruslju izračunane na podlagi izključno življenjskih stro�kov v Bruslju, torej ne da bi bila upo�tevana „metoda države“, pritožnik oporeka navedbam Sodi�ča prve stopnje iz točke 124 sodbe, v kateri je zatrdilo, da „zakonitost regulativnega akta Skupnosti ne more biti odvisna od načina njegovega izvajanja v praksi“, in iz točke 125, v kateri je Sodi�če prve stopnje opozorilo na ustaljeno sodno prakso, iz katere izhaja, da „je treba spo�tovanje načela enakega obravnavanja uskladiti s spo�tovanjem načela zakonitosti, v skladu s katerim nihče v svojo korist ne more uveljavljati nezakonitosti nekega ravnanja, ki je bilo storjeno v korist nekoga drugega“.
The first problem to be addressed in order to assess this argument is to determine, objectively, what result the appellant’s claim is intended to achieve.
Prvo vpra�anje, na katero je treba odgovoriti v okviru presoje te trditve, se nana�a na objektivno opredelitev rezultata, ki ga želi doseči pritožnik.
In particular, as regards the first of the two cited statements of the Court of First Instance, the appellant not only disputes that the caselaw endorses the interpretation of the Court of First Instance but also wonders what other acts (for the practical implementation of the new pension scheme) he could have challenged in order to obtain redress for his claims.
Glede prve izmed dveh navedb Sodi�ča prve stopnje pritožnik zatrjuje, da razlaga, ki jo zagovarja Sodi�če prve stopnje, ni utemeljena v sodni praksi, in se spra�uje, katere akte (za izvedbo nove pokojninske ureditve v praksi) bi lahko izpodbijal, da bi na svoja vpra�anja dobil uporaben odgovor.