natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In the light of all the foregoing, it must be held that the Commission has not established that, by formally refusing to proceed against the use on its territory of the name ‘Parmesan’ on the labelling of products which do not comply with the requirements of the specification for the PDO ‘Parmigiano Reggiano’, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92.
Glede na navedeno je treba ugotoviti, da Komisija ni dokazala, da Zvezna republika Nemčija s tem, da uradno zavrača sankcioniranje uporabe imena „parmezan“ na etiketah proizvodov, ki ne ustrezajo specifikaciji ZOP „Parmigiano Reggiano“, ni izpolnila obveznosti iz člena 13(1)(b) Uredbe �t. 2081/92.
The action brought by the Commission must therefore be dismissed.
Tožbo Komisije je zato treba zavrniti.
Since the Federal Republic of Germany has applied for costs and the Commission has been unsuccessful in all its pleas, the Commission must be ordered to pay the costs.
Zvezna republika Nemčija je predlagala, naj se Komisiji naloži plačilo stro�kov, in ker ta s predlogi ni uspela, se ji naloži plačilo stro�kov.
In accordance with Article 69(4), the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Italian Republic and the Republic of Austria must bear their own costs.
V skladu z odstavkom 4 istega člena Če�ka republika, Kraljevina Danska, Italijanska republika in Republika Avstrija nosijo svoje stro�ke.
On those grounds, the Court (Grand Chamber) hereby:
Iz teh razlogov je Sodi�če (veliki senat) razsodilo:
Orders the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Italian Republic and the Republic of Austria to bear their own costs.
Češka republika, Kraljevina Danska, Italijanska republika in Republika Avstrija nosijo svoje stroške.
Case C-506/06
Zadeva C-506/06
(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria))
(Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, ki ga je vložilo Oberster Gerichtshof (Avstrija))
(Social policy — Directive 92/85/EEC — Measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding — Meaning of ‘pregnant worker’ — Prohibition of dismissal of pregnant workers during the period from the beginning of their pregnancy to the end of the maternity leave — Woman dismissed where, at the date she was given notice of her dismissal, her ova had been fertilised in vitro, but not yet transferred to her uterus — Directive 76/207/EEC — Equal treatment for men and women — Woman undergoing in vitro fertilisation treatment — Prohibition of dismissal — Scope)
„Socialna politika – Direktiva 92/85/EGS – Ukrepi za spodbujanje izbolj�av na področju varnosti in zdravja pri delu nosečih delavk in delavk, ki so pred kratkim rodile ali dojijo – Izraz ‚noseča delavka‘ – Prepoved odpusta nosečih delavk med obdobjem od začetka njihove nosečnosti do konca porodni�kega dopusta – Odpu�čena delavka, katere jajčeca so bila na dan odpusta oplojena in vitro, ne pa �e prenesena v njeno maternico – Direktiva 76/207/EGS – Enako obravnavanje delavcev in delavk – Delavka, pri kateri je bila opravljena oploditev in vitro – Prepoved odpusta – Obseg“
SUMMARY — CASE C-506/06
POVZETEK – ZADEVA C-506/06
Social policy — Protection of the safety and health of workers — Pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding — Directive 92/85
Socialna politika – Varnost in zdravje delavcev – Noseče delavke in delavke, ki so pred kratkim rodile ali dojijo – Direktiva 92/85 (Direktiva Sveta 92/85, člen 10, točka 1)
Social policy — Male and female workers — Access to employment and working conditions — Equal treatment — Directive 76/207
Socialna politika – Delavci in delavke – Dostop do zaposlitve in delovni pogoji – Enako obravnavanje – Direktiva 76/207
Directive 92/85 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding and, in particular, the prohibition of dismissal of pregnant workers provided for in Article 10(1) of that directive must be interpreted as not extending to a female worker who is undergoing in vitro fertilisation treatment where, on the date she is given notice of her dismissal, her ova have already been fertilised by her partner’s sperm cells, so that in vitro fertilised ova exist, but they have not yet been transferred into her uterus.
Direktivo 92/85 o uvedbi ukrepov za spodbujanje izbolj�av na področju varnosti in zdravja pri delu nosečih delavk in delavk, ki so pred kratkim rodile ali dojijo, in med drugim prepoved odpusta nosečih delavk, določeno v členu 10, točka 1, te direktive, je treba razlagati tako, da se ne nana�a na delavko, ki se ji opravi oploditev in vitro, kadar je na dan, ko je bila odpu�čena, do oploditve njenih jajčnih celic s semenskimi celicami njenega partnerja že pri�lo, tako da že obstajajo jajčne celice, oplojene in vitro, vendar te �e niso bile prenesene v maternico te delavke.
kept for an indeterminate period, with the national legislation in question in the case in question providing, in that regard, that the fertilised ova may be kept for a maximum period of 10 years.
delavko. V določenih državah članicah je namreč mogoče ta jajčeca pred prenosom v maternico zadevne ženske shraniti za kraj�e ali dalj�e obdobje in glede tega nacionalna zakonodaja, ki se obravnava v tem primeru, predvidi možnost ohranjanja oplojenih jajčec za največ deset let.
Therefore, applying the protection against dismissal laid down in Article 10 of Directive 92/85 in favour of a female worker before the transfer of the fertilised ova could have the effect of granting the benefit of that protection even where that transfer is postponed, for whatever reason, for a number of years or even where such transfer is definitively abandoned, the in vitro fertilisation having been carried out merely by way of precaution.
Tako bi lahko torej uporaba varstva delavke pred odpustom, določenega v členu 10 Direktive 92/85, pred prenosom oplojenih jajčec povzročila priznanje ugodnosti tega varstva, tudi kadar se ta prenos zamakne iz različnih razlogov tudi za nekaj let ali kadar se je prenosu dokončno odreklo, ker je bila oploditev in vitro opravljena zgolj kot previdnostni ukrep.
In that regard, the protection established by Article 10 of Directive 92/85 cannot, for reasons connected with the principle of legal certainty, be extended to such a worker.
V zvezi s tem se varstvo iz člena 10 Direktive 92/85 zaradi razlogov pravne varnosti ne more raz�iriti na tako
(see paras 41, 42, 53 and operative part)
(Glej točke 41, 42, 53 in izrek.)
carrying out their work on account of the medical treatment they must receive, the treatment, consisting of a follicular puncture and the transfer to the woman’s uterus of the ova removed by way of that follicular puncture immediately after their fertilisation, directly affects only women.
zdravljenj, ki so jim bila predpisana, se posegi, ki vključujejo punkcijo foliklov in prenos jajčec, ki so nastala s to punkcijo, v maternico ženske takoj po oploditvi, neposredno nana�ajo le na ženske.
It follows that the dismissal of a female worker essentially because she is undergoing that important stage of in vitro fertilisation treatment constitutes direct discrimination on grounds of sex.
Iz tega izhaja, da odpust delavke v glavnem zaradi tega, ker ji je bila opravljena ta pomembna faza oploditve in vitro, pomeni neposredno diskriminacijo na podlagi spola.
Articles 2(1) and 5(1) of Directive 76/207 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions, preclude the dismissal of a female worker who is at an advanced stage of in vitro fertilisation treatment, that is, between the follicular puncture and the immediate transfer of the in vitro fertilised ova into her uterus, where it is established that the dismissal is essentially based on the fact that the woman has undergone such treatment.
Člena 2(1) in 5(1) Direktive 76/207 o izvr�evanju načela enakega obravnavanja mo�kih in žensk v zvezi z dostopom do zaposlitve, poklicnega usposabljanja in napredovanja ter delovnih pogojev nasprotujeta odpustu delavke, ki se nahaja v kasnej�i fazi oploditve in vitro, torej v fazi punkcije foliklov in takoj�njega prenosa jajčec, oplojenih in vitro, v njeno maternico, če se dokaže, da je razlog za odpust v glavnem to, da je bil stranki opravljen tak poseg.
While it is true that workers of both sexes can be temporarily prevented from
Čeprav je res, da so delavci obeh spolov lahko začasno nezmožni za delo zaradi
(see paras 50, 52, 54 and operative part)
(Glej točke 50, 52, 54 in izrek.)
OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERALRUIZ-JARABO COLOMER delivered on 27 November 2007 1
SKLEPNI PREDLOGI GENERALNEGA PRAVOBRANILCADÁMASA RUIZ-JARABOJA COLOMERJA, predstavljeni 27. novembra 2007 1
Most societies have tried to give special importance to the pregnant woman, both out of a desire to pay tribute to her and in order to protect her — and her child — against the bad omens and dangers associated with maternity.
Večina družb je noseči ženski priznala posebno mesto in ji s tem izkazala spo�tovanje ter jo tako tudi za�čitila – skupaj z njenim otrokom – pred uroki in tveganji, povezanimi z materinstvom.
In his famous book Les rites de passage (Rites of Passage, published in 1909), the French ethnographer Arnold Van Gennep describes various rituals marking the changes experienced by human beings in primitive societies: pregnancy, birth, marriage and death. 3
Francoski etnolog Arnold Van Gennep v svojem znanem delu Les rites de passage (objavljenem leta 1909) opisuje več obredov, s katerimi so primitivne družbe označevale spremembe v življenju človeka: nosečnost, rojstvo, poroko in smrt. 3
In Mémoires de Deux Jeunes Mariées (Letters of Two Brides), one of Balzac’s heroines, who is pregnant for the first time, is surprised that she does not feel anything in particular at first and that she is more aware of her condition through the way others look at her rather than through the sensations of her own body, observing that ‘motherhood is at first merely in the imagination’ and, as she watches her symptoms, she goes on to develop an intense desire to know at what moment motherhood begins. 4The great
V Balzacovem delu Mémoires de deux jeunes mariées se ena od junakinj, ki je prvič noseča, čudi, da na začetku ne občuti nič posebnega in da odkrije svoje stanje v pogledih drugih, in ne v lastnem telesu; ko trdi, da se „materinstvo začne v domi�ljiji“, čakajoč na simptome, postane nato pretirano radovedna in hoče vedeti, kdaj se začne. 4Francisco de Goya je naslikal portret lepe grofice Chinchón v sijaju njenih 21 let, ne da bi pri tem prikril otroka, ki ga pričakuje, vendar aragonski genij to nakaže diskretno,
For a long time, pregnancy had an aura of mystery; home pregnancy tests had not yet been invented and technological advances did not provide images of the foetus in the mother’s womb.
Nosečnost je bila dolgo časa zavita v tančice skrivnosti; hitri nosečnostni testi �e niso bili odkriti in tehnični napredek ni omogočal slik ploda v maternici.
In the past, a pregnant woman could not be sure of her condition straight away and often remained in a state of uncertainty for weeks.
Včasih noseča ženska ni bila nemudoma prepričana o svojem stanju in pogosto se je zgodilo, da je bila več tednov v dvomih.
Some observers, particularly the pioneers of medical science, attempted to describe the symptoms of gestation.
Nekateri opazovalci, zlasti začetniki medicinske znanosti, so posku�ali opisati simptome nosečnosti.
Pliny the Elder affirms in book VII of his Natural History that, ‘on the tenth day after conception, pains are felt in the head, vertigo, and dimness of the sight; these signs, together with loathing of food and rising of the stomach, indicate the formation of the future human being’; adding that ‘if it is a male that is conceived, the colour of the pregnant woman is more healthy, and the birth less painful’. 2
Plinij starej�i v knjigi VII svojega dela Naturalis historia ugotavlja, da se „deseti dan po spočetju pojavijo glavoboli, vrtoglavice, omotice, slabost, bruhanje, znaki, ki kažejo, da je bilo spočeto člove�ko bitje“; dodaja �e, da je „polt lep�a in nosečnost lažja, če je fantek“. 2
2 — Pliny the Elder, The Natural History, Bostock, J. and Riley, H.T. (eds), Taylor and Francis, London, 1855.
2 – Plinij starej�i, Histoire naturelle, knjiga VII, V., založba Firmin-Didot, Pariz, 1883, str. 286.
MAYR of Directive 92/85/EEC, 6in particular to determine whether, at the time the employee concerned was dismissed, she could be regarded as pregnant and thus protected by that provision of Community law.
MAYR tako da jo upodobi z lepo krono iz žitnega klasja, simbolom plodnosti.
Aragonese master, Francisco Goya, painted the beautiful Countess of Chinchón in the full glory of her 21 years, not hiding the fact that she was expecting a child but indicating it discreetly by giving her a delicate headdress of ears of corn, a symbol of fertility. 5
5 odločilo, ali je bilo stranko v času, ko jo je podjetje odpustilo, mogoče �teti za nosečo in torej za�čiteno s to določbo Skupnosti.
The reference therefore raises the question of when a pregnancy begins for the purposes of that directive.
V predlogu za sprejetje predhodne odločbe je torej postavljeno vpra�anje o določitvi trenutka začetka nosečnosti za namene zadevne direktive.
This is a very delicate question as it could lead indirectly into a medico-ethical debate on the origins of life, which would be both unnecessary and inappropriate in the present context.
Gre za izredno občutljivo zadevo, ki bi lahko, čeprav samo posredno, privedla do medicinskoetične razprave o izvoru življenja, ki pa je v tem okviru nepotrebna in nedopustna.
It would be quite reasonable to suppose that she would have preferred to keep this private and intimate matter a secret for a few months.
Ni zmotno sklepati, da bi �e nekaj mesecev raje molčala o tej podrobnosti, ki izhaja iz njenega zasebnega življenja in njene intimnosti.
But this was not possible as the assisted reproduction process to which she was obliged to have recourse made it necessary for her to disclose her secret immediately.
Vendar to ni bilo mogoče, ker je morala zaradi postopka umetne oploditve, h kateri se je morala zateči, svojo skrivnost nato razkriti.
After undergoing a follicular puncture and when the ova had been fertilised in a laboratory but the embryos had not been implanted in her uterus, her employer gave her notice of the termination of her employment.
Po punkciji foliklov in potem ko so njene jajčne celice oplodili v laboratoriju, vendar �e preden so bili zarodki preneseni v maternico, ji je podjetje vročilo odpoved njene pogodbe o zaposlitvi.
The question referred for a prelimin- ary ruling concerns Directive 92/85/EEC,
Avstrijsko Oberster Gerichtshof spra�uje Sodi�če o obsegu izraza „noseča delavka“ iz člena 2(a) Direktive 92/85/EGS 6, da bi zlasti
6 — Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding (tenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (OJ 1992 L 348, p. 18).
6 – Direktiva Sveta z dne 19. oktobra 1992 o uvedbi ukrepov za spodbujanje izbolj�av na področju varnosti in zdravja pri delu nosečih delavk in delavk, ki so pred kratkim rodile ali dojijo (deseta posebna direktiva v smislu člena 16(1) Direktive 89/391/EGS), (UL L 348, str. 1).
OPINION OF MR RUIZ-JARABO — CASE C-506/06 by reference in particular to marital or family status’ and Article 2(3) clarifies that the provisions of the directive are without prejudice to ‘the protection of women, particularly as regards pregnancy and maternity’.
SKLEPNI PREDLOGI RUIZ-JARABOJA – ZADEVA C-506/06 člen 2(a), v skladu s katerim „noseča delavka“ pomeni „nosečo delavko, ki svojega delodajalca obvesti o svojem stanju v skladu z nacionalno zakonodajo in/ali nacionalno prakso“.
specifically Article 2(a), by virtue of which a ‘pregnant worker’ is one who ‘informs her employer of her condition, in accordance with national legislation and/or national practice.’
2(1) je na podlagi načela enakega obravnavanja določeno, da ne sme biti „nobene diskriminacije na podlagi spola, bodisi posredne ali neposredne, �e zlasti glede na zakonski ali družinski status“, pri čemer je v odstavku 3 pojasnjeno, da določbe Direktive ne vplivajo na „varstvo žensk, �e zlasti kar se tiče nosečnosti in materinstva“.
Article 5 provides that the principle of equal treatment with regard to working conditions, including the conditions governing dismissal, means that men and women are to be guaranteed the same position without any discrimination relating to their sex.
V njenem členu 5 je določeno, da to načelo enakega obravnavanja v zvezi z delovnimi pogoji, vključno s pogoji, ki uravnavajo odpu�čanje, pomeni, da se mo�kim in ženskam zagotovijo enake možnosti brez diskriminacije na podlagi spola.
One of the safeguards given to workers falling within the scope of the directive is a prohibition of dismissal in order to guarantee ‘the exercise of their health and safety protection rights’.
Med jamstvi, priznanimi delavkam, za katere se uporablja Direktiva, je prepoved odpusta kot zagotovilo za „uresničevanje njihovih pravic iz varnosti in zdravja“.
Pursuant to Article 10, Member States must take the necessary measures to prohibit such dismissal from the beginning of the pregnancy to the end of the maternity leave, save in exceptional cases not connected with their condition which are permitted under national legislation and/or practice, provided that the competent authority has given its consent (Article 10(1)), and if a worker is dismissed during this period, the employer must give grounds for the dismissal in writing (Article 10(2)).
V skladu s členom 10 Direktive države članice sprejmejo potrebne ukrepe za prepoved odpusta delavk med obdobjem od začetka njihove nosečnosti do konca porodni�kega dopusta, razen v izjemnih primerih, dovoljenih po nacionalni zakonodaji in/ali praksi, ki niso povezani z njihovim stanjem, in pod pogojem, da je svoje soglasje dal pristojen organ (odstavek 1); poleg tega mora delodajalec, če je delavka odpu�čena med obdobjem, navedenim v točki 1, pisno navesti pravilno utemeljene razloge za njen odpust (odstavek 2).
Directive 76/207 was amended by Directive 2002/73/EC, 8and later repealed and replaced by Directive 2006/54/EC. 9 Neither
Vendar pa se v tem primeru ne uporablja noben od slednjih predpisov, ker se roki, določeni za prenos Direktive 2002/73 in sprejetje Direktive 2006/54, v času dejanskega stanja v zadevi v glavni stvari �e niso iztekli.
Although the referring court does not expressly refer to it, Directive 76/207/EEC 7 of these pieces of legislation, however, applies in this case as the timelimits for transposition of Directive 2002/73 and the adoption of Directive 2006/54 fall after the occurrence of the events in the main proceedings.
Čeprav predložitveno sodi�če izrecno ne omenja Direktive 76/207/EGS 7, je v tem primeru vseeno pomembna.
is also relevant.
V njenem členu
8 — Directive 2002/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 amending Council Directive 76/207/EEC on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions (OJ 2002 L 269, p. 15).
8 – Direktiva Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 23. septembra 2002 o izvr�evanju načela enakega obravnavanja mo�kih in žensk v zvezi z dostopom do zaposlitve, poklicnega usposabljanja in napredovanja ter delovnih pogojev (UL L 269, str. 15).
9 — Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast) (OJ 2006 L 204, p. 23)
9 – Direktiva Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 5. julija 2006 o uresničevanju načela enakih možnosti ter enakega obravnavanja mo�kih in žensk pri zaposlovanju in poklicnem delu (preoblikovano) (UL L 204, str. 23).
7 — Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions (OJ 1976 L 39, p. 40-42).
7 – Direktiva Sveta z dne 9. februarja 1976 o izvr�evanju načela enakega obravnavanja mo�kih in žensk v zvezi z dostopom do zaposlitve, poklicnega usposabljanja in napredovanja ter delovnih pogojev (UL L 39, str. 40).
B — The Austrian legislation
B – Avstrijska zakonodaja
After hormone treatment lasting for about one and a half months, a follicular puncture was carried out on her on 8 March 2005 and she was certified sick by her general practitioner from 8 to 13 March 2005, which was the date planned for transferring two embryos to her uterus. 10
Po hormonskem zdravljenju, ki je trajalo mesec in pol, so ji 8. marca 2005 opravili punkcijo folikla in njen lečeči zdravnik ji je predpisal bolni�ki dopust od 8. do 13. marca, to je datuma, predvidenega za prenos dveh zarodkov v maternico. 10
Under Paragraph 10 of the Mutterschutzgesetz (Law on maternity protection (‘MSchG’)), workers cannot validly be dismissed during pregnancy or in the four months following child birth, provided that the employer has been informed of these circumstances prior to the termination of employment or within five days of its announcement or notification.
V skladu s členom 10 Mutterschutzgesetz (avstrijski zakon o materinskem varstvu, v nadaljevanju: MSchG) delavk ni mogoče zakonito odpustiti med nosečnostjo in �tiri mesece po porodu, če je bil delodajalec o teh okoli�činah obve�čen pred odpustom ali v petih dneh po obvestilu ali vročitvi odločbe o odpustu.
In the meantime, on 10 March, her employer advised her by telephone that her employment would be terminated on 26 March 2005.
Medtem jo je podjetje 10. marca med telefonskim pogovorom obvestilo, da bo s 26. marcem 2005 njena pogodba o zaposlitvi odpovedana. S.
By a letter of the same date Ms Mayr informed the company of the procedure planned for 13 March.
Mayr je v dopisu istega dne, to je 10. marca, svojega delodajalca obvestila o posegu, predvidenem za 13. marec.
According to the referring court, it is not disputed that on the date that she was notified of her dismissal the ova taken from her had already been united with her partner’s sperm cells and that in vitro embryos therefore existed.
Kot navaja predložitveno sodi�če, je dokazano, da so se na dan obvestila o odpustu jajčne celice, ki so bile odvzete stranki, že združile s semenčicami njenega partnerja, tako da so obstajali zarodki in vitro.
Furthermore, the Fortpflanzungsmedi-zingesetz (Law on reproductive medicine (‘FMedG’)) defines fertilised ova and cells grown from them as ‘viable cells’ (Paragraph 1(3)) and provides that they may be kept for a period of up to ten years (Paragraph 17(1)).
Poleg tega so v Fortpflanzungsmedizingesetz (avstrijski zakon o oploditvi z medicinsko pomočjo, v nadaljevanju: FMedG) kot „predzarodki, sposobni preživetja“ opredeljene oplojene jajčne celice in pridobljene celice (člen 1(3)), hrani pa se jih lahko največ deset let (člen 17(1)).
III — The facts, the main proceedings and the question referred for a preliminary ruling
III – Dejansko stanje, spor o glavni stvari in vprašanje za predhodno odločanje
In these circumstances, Ms Mayr took legal action against her employer claiming her salary and pro rata annual remuneration, submitting that the dismissal of 10 March 2005 had no legal effect because as from 8 March when the in vitro fertilisation of her ova took place she was entitled to protection against dismissal under Paragraph 10(1) of the MSchG.
V teh okoli�činah je S. Mayr po sodni poti od delodajalca zahtevala svojo plačo in ustrezen delež svojih letnih prejemkov, pri čemer je trdila, da je odpust z dne 10. marca 2005 ničen, ker je bila od 8. marca, ko je bila opravljena oploditev njenih jajčnih celic in vitro, za�čitena s prepovedjo, določeno v členu 10(1) MSchG.