natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
As regards, secondly, the other losses claimed by Mrs Girardot, the Court of First Instance rejected them as irrelevant in paragraphs 123 to 125 of the judgment under appeal, on the ground that the objective of the fair financial compensation, having regard to Mrs Girardot’s applications for annulment, was to give effect to the interim judgment and adequately protect her rights by providing ex aequo et bono compensation for the impossibility of restoring the position prior to the unlawful act and was not, in the absence of a prior claim for damages, to make reparation for any other harm which that unlawful act might additionally have caused her.
Druge vrste �kode, ki jih je uveljavljala M.-C. Girardot, je Sodi�če prve stopnje v točkah od 123 do 125 izpodbijane sodbe zavrnilo kot nepomembne, ker je bil namen primerne denarne od�kodnine, glede na predloge za razglasitev ničnosti, ki jih je podala M.-C. Girardot, nadomestiti izvr�itev vmesne sodbe in ustrezno za�čititi njene pravice, tako da se ex æquo et bono ustvari izravnava za nezakonit položaj, ne pa brez predhodnega od�kodninskega zahtevka popraviti vse preostale vrste �kod, ki ji jih je ta nezakonitost poleg tega lahko povzročila.
In any event, the Court of First Instance considered, in paragraphs 125 to 138 of that judgment, that none of the other losses could be taken into consideration when setting the amount of the fair financial compensation.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je v točkah od 125 do 138 izpodbijane sodbe ugotovilo, da v nobenem primeru druge zatrjevane vrste �kod niso mogle biti upo�tevane pri določanju zneska primerne denarne od�kodnine.
In particular, as regards the nonmaterial harm resulting from the deterioration of Mrs Girardot’s mental health and her depression and the physical harm caused by the unlawful rejection of her applications, the Court of First Instance considered, in paragraphs 133 and 137 of that judgment, that Mrs Girardot had not produced any evidence of their existence, such as a medical certificate or appropriate expert report.
Glede elementov nepremoženjske �kode zaradi poslab�anja du�evnega zdravja in depresivnega stanja M.-C. Girardot ter zatrjevane telesne �kode zaradi nezakonitega zavrženja njenih prijav je Sodi�če prve stopnje v točkah 133 in 137 iste sodbe ugotovilo, da M.-C. Girardot o tem ni predložila nobenega dokaza, kot je na primer veljavno zdravni�ko potrdilo ali veljavno strokovno mnenje.
By its appeal, the Commission claims that the Court should:
Komisija s pritožbo Sodi�ču predlaga, naj:
— annul the judgment under appeal;
– izpodbijano sodbo razveljavi;
— order that each of the parties should bear its own costs in relation to the present proceedings and to the proceedings before the Court of First Instance.
– odloči, da vsaka stranka nosi svoje stro�ke, nastale v tem postopku in v postopku pred Sodi�čem prve stopnje.
— declare the appeal brought by the Commission to be inadmissible and, in any event, unfounded;
– pritožbo Komisije razglasi za nedopustno in v vsakem primeru za neutemeljeno;
— declare her cross-appeal to be admissible, to annul the judgment under appeal and to uphold her claims for annulment and damages submitted at first instance;
– njeno nasprotno pritožbo razglasi za dopustno, izpodbijano sodbo razveljavi ter ugodi predlogu za razglasitev ničnosti in od�kodninskemu zahtevku na prvi stopnji;
— order the Commission to pay the costs.
– Komisiji naloži plačilo stro�kov.
The main appeal
Glavna pritožba
The Commission submits a single ground of appeal, alleging that the method used by the Court of First Instance to calculate the loss of opportunity is an infringement of Article 236 EC and of the conditions governing the liability of the Commission.
Komisija navaja en pritožbeni razlog, in sicer da metoda, ki jo je uporabilo Sodi�če prve stopnje za izračun izgube možnosti, kr�i člen 236 ES in pogoje za uveljavljanje odgovornosti Komisije.
The Commission explains, first, that, given the conflicting caselaw of the Court of First Instance on the matter, the objective of its appeal is to obtain, in the interests of legal certainty, a ruling from the Court of Justice on the manner of calculating the loss of an opportunity to be recruited by the Commission when it has made an unlawful decision depriving the person concerned of the expectation that his application will be examined.
Komisija v zvezi s tem uvodoma pojasnjuje, da je v interesu pravne varnosti, ob upo�tevanju nasprotujoče si sodne prakse Sodi�ča prve stopnje glede tega vpra�anja, namen njene pritožbe, da Sodi�če presodi način izračuna izgube možnosti zaposlitve pri Komisiji, saj je ta sprejela nezakonito odločitev in tako zainteresirani osebi onemogočila, da bi bila njena prijava obravnavana.
The Commission adds that the objective of its appeal is thus that the Court of Justice identify a consistent legal argument and a method for the purpose of calculating such loss of opportunity which would be applicable in all situations.
Dodaja, da je zasledovani cilj te pritožbe, da Sodi�če oblikuje pravno utemeljitev in enotno metodo za izračun te izgube možnosti, ki bi bili uporabljivi v vseh primerih.
The Commission makes clear on that point that it accepts the idea that the loss of an opportunity to obtain a post is material damage for which compensation can be paid.
Komisija v zvezi s tem pojasnjuje, da sprejema idejo, da izguba možnosti zaposlitve pomeni povračljivo premoženjsko �kodo.
On the other hand, it cannot accept the manner in which the Court of First Instance quantified the damage suffered by Mrs Girardot.
Nasprotno pa ne more sprejeti načina, po katerem je Sodi�če prve stopnje kvantitativno določilo �kodo, ki jo je utrpela M.-C. Girardot.
According to the Commission, paragraph 58 of the judgment under appeal is on that point vitiated by errors of law.
Komisija meni, da je v točki 58 izpodbijane sodbe pravo napačno uporabljeno.
The only damage suffered by Mrs Girardot which is actual and certain is that resulting from the failure to examine her application and not that resulting from a hypothetical loss of earnings for a period which is no less hypothetical.
Dejanska in gotova �koda, ki jo je utrpela M.-C. Girardot, naj bi namreč izhajala iz tega, da njene prijave niso bile obravnavane, ne pa iz hipotetične izgube plačila v obdobju, ki je prav tako določeno hipotetično.
Although, in paragraphs 99 and 116 of that judgment, the Court of First Instance recognises, first, that the Commission was under no obligation to complete the recruitment procedure and, secondly, that it is not the function of the Court to carry out in the place of the Commission a consideration of the comparative merits of candidates, the Court did in fact undertake such a consideration in paragraphs 62 to 95 of that judgment.
Toda čeprav je Sodi�če prve stopnje v točkah 99 in 116 izpodbijane sodbe priznalo, da po eni strani Komisija ni bila dolžna končati postopka zaposlitve in da po drugi strani Sodi�če prve stopnje ni dolžno opraviti primerjalne ocene uspe�nosti kandidatov namesto Komisije, naj bi v točkah od 62 do 95 iste sodbe to dejansko storilo.
The Court of First Instance therefore did not assess the actual and certain damage linked to the loss of opportunity, but determined the hypothetical damage linked to loss of earnings, which presupposes an entitlement to be recruited.
Sodi�če prve stopnje naj torej ne bi izračunalo dejanske in gotove �kode, povezane z izgubo možnosti, temveč naj bi določilo hipotetično �kodo, povezano z izgubo plačila, ki predpostavlja pravico do zaposlitve.
The Court of First Instance thereby misinterpreted the concept of loss of opportunity as loss of the certainty of obtaining a post, and in so doing failed to recognise the margin of discretion and freedom to choose which the Community institutions must have in the area of recruitment.
Sodi�če prve stopnje naj bi tako pojem izgube možnosti zaposlitve spremenilo v izgubo gotovosti zaposlitve in naj tako ne bi upo�tevalo diskrecijske pravice in svobode izbire, ki jo morajo imeti institucije Skupnosti na področju zaposlovanja.
The Commission stressed moreover, at the hearing, that there is no direct causal link between the wrongful act committed by the Commission, namely its failure
Komisija je v zvezi s tem na obravnavi med drugim poudarila, da ne obstaja nobena neposredna vzročna zveza med napako, ki jo je storila Komisija, s tem da ni upo�te-
COMMISSION v GIRARDOT to take Mrs Girardot’s applications into consideration, and the damage ultimately determined by the Court of First Instance in the judgment under appeal.
KOMISIJA PROTI GIRARDOT vala prijav M.-C. Girardot, in �kodo, ki jo je nazadnje priznalo Sodi�če prve stopnje z izpodbijano sodbo.
However, according to the caselaw (Joined Cases 64/76, 113/76, 167/78, 239/78, 27/79, 28/79 and 45/79 Dumortier and Others [1979] ECR 3091, paragraph 21), the damage must be a direct consequence of the conduct alleged to be unlawful.
V skladu s sodno prakso Sodi�ča pa bi morala �koda izhajati neposredno iz očitanega ravnanja (glej zlasti sodbo z dne 4. oktobra 1979 v — Dumortier in drugi proti Svetu, 64/76, 113/76, 167/78, 239/78, 27/79, 28/79 in 45/79, Recueil, str. 3091, točka 21).
The Commission considers that the error of law is further demonstrated by the fact that, to calculate the loss of earnings, the Court of First Instance took into consideration the earnings received in the interim by the person concerned.
Komisija meni, da je ta napačna uporaba prava podkrepljena z dejstvom, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje za izračun izgube plačila upo�tevalo plačilo, ki ga je M.-C. Girardot prejemala v vmesnem obdobju.
In the event that the post she held during the period in question had been better paid than that which she could have held at the Commission, she would have suffered no loss of earnings while she would still have suffered a loss of opportunity.
Če bi namreč v zadevnem obdobju opravljala delo, ki bi bilo bolje plačano kot delo pri Komisiji, ne bi utrpela nobene izgube plačila, čeprav je utrpela izgubo možnosti.
Since that method depends on circumstances which are a matter of chance, it is likely to lead to discrimination between candidates in the same recruitment exercise.
Glede na to, da je ta metoda odvisna od negotovih okoli�čin, bi tako lahko diskriminirala kandidate, ki se potegujejo za isto delovno mesto.
According to the Commission, the error in the reasoning of the Court of First Instance is magnified by the second point made in paragraph 58 of the judgment under appeal, namely that the difference in earnings may, ‘where appropriate’, be adjusted in amount by a percentage representing the chance which the person concerned had of being recruited.
Komisija meni, da je napačno razlogovanje Sodi�ča prve stopnje poleg tega podkrepljeno z drugo ugotovitvijo iz točke 58 izpodbijane sodbe, in sicer da se razlika v plačilu lahko oceni, „če je to ustrezno“, v obliki odstotka, ki pomeni možnost zainteresirane osebe, da dobi zaposlitev.
That point shows again that the objective of the Court of First Instance was to quantify the damage caused by a hypothetical loss of earnings and not that caused by loss of the chance of being recruited, since the calculation of that loss of earnings may be assessed only by reference to the hypothetical chance of obtaining the post in question.
Ta ugotovitev naj bi namreč znova dokazovala, da Sodi�če prve stopnje kvantitativno določa �kodo, nastalo iz hipotetične izgube plačila, ne pa iz izgube možnosti zaposlitve, saj se bo izračun te izgube plačila zgolj eventualno presojal glede na hipotetično možnost dobiti zadevno zaposlitev.
Moreover, for this purpose the Court of First Instance indulged in indiscriminate speculation when quantifying the degree of probability that Mrs Girardot would be recruited, although she had no right to be recruited.
Poleg tega je Sodi�če prve stopnje v zvezi s tem uporabilo negotove hipoteze, da je kvantitativno določilo stopnjo verjetnosti zaposlitve M.-C. Girardot, medtem ko ta ni imela pravice do zaposlitve.
Consequently, the Commission considers that in the judgment under appeal takes the opposite approach to the calculation of the loss of an opportunity to be recruited to that which is correct in law, since there was first a calculation of the loss of earn-
Komisija zato meni, da je bila v izpodbijani sodbi izguba možnosti zaposlitve izračunana pravno napačno, saj je bila izguba plačila, ki naj bi jo utrpela M.-C. Girardot, izračunana pred pomnožitvijo dobljenega zneska s korekcijskim koeficientom, pove-
2008 — CASE C-348/06 P ings hypothetically suffered by Mrs Girardot, and then an adjustment to the amount obtained by means of a weighting linked to the probability of her being recruited.
2008 – ZADEVA C-348/06 P zanim z verjetnostjo zaposlitve M.-C. Girardot.
The quantification of that loss of opportunity ought to be based on something other than the loss of earnings, which presupposes that recruitment was a certainty.
Kvantitativna določitev te izgube možnosti bi torej morala temeljiti na drugi osnovi kot na izgubi plačila, ki predpostavlja gotovost zaposlitve.
In those circumstances, the Commission, in accordance with the second sentence of the first paragraph of Article 61of the Statute of the Court of Justice, invites the Court to declare that the loss of opportunity suffered by Mrs Girardot may be made good fairly by the award of a lump sum equivalent to three months’ net salary corres- ponding to the sum which would be paid to her during the notice period for a contract of indefinite duration — namely in this case EUR 18 917.43 — together with the sum, also a lump sum payment, of EUR 5 000 as compensation for the fact the person concerned may no longer take part in a later recruitment procedure.
V teh okoli�činah Komisija Sodi�ču predlaga, naj v skladu s členom 61(1), drugi stavek, Statuta Sodi�ča odloči, da se lahko �koda, ki jo je utrpela M.-C. Girardot, primerno nadomesti s plačilom pav�alnega zneska v vi�ini treh mesečnih neto plač, kar ustreza vsoti, ki bi ji morala biti izplačana med odpovednim rokom pogodbe za nedoločen čas – to je 18.917,43 EUR – povečanega za prav tako pav�alni znesek v vi�ini 5000 EUR kot od�kodnina, ker M.-C. Girardot ne bo mogla več sodelovati pri prihodnjih postopkih zaposlovanja.
Mrs Girardot contends that the appeal is inadmissible for two reasons.
M.-C. Girardot zatrjuje, da je pritožba nedopustna iz dveh razlogov.
Firstly, the Court of First Instance alone has jurisdiction to carry out an assessment of the damage resulting from the loss of an opportunity.
Prvič, samo Sodi�če prve stopnje naj bi bilo pristojno za oceno �kode, ki je nastala zaradi izgube možnosti.
Accordingly, unless the Commission complains that the Court of First Instance did not specify the criteria adopted to carry out the assessment of the damage suffered, the Commission is not justified in criticising the assessment made in the judgment under appeal on that matter nor, a fortiori, in expecting the Court of Justice to issue a decision of principle on the method to be used to calculate compensation for material damage resulting from the loss of an opportunity.
Če Komisija Sodi�ču prve stopnje ne očita, da ni opisalo meril, ki jih je uporabilo za oceno utrpljene �kode, potem naj ne bi bila upravičena kritizirati presoje v izpodbijani sodbi glede tega vpra�anja in a fortiori od Sodi�ča pričakovati, da bo sprejelo načelno odločitev o metodi, ki jo je treba uporabiti za izračun premoženjske �kode zaradi izgube možnosti.
Moreover, there are a vast number of different situations which can only be looked at on a case-by-case basis.
V zvezi s tem naj bi med drugim obstajalo ne�teto različnih položajev, ki se jih lahko obravnava samo od primera do primera.
Secondly, the ground of appeal to the effect that the Court of First Instance was providing compensation for the loss of a certainty of obtaining a post and not the loss of an opportunity was not raised at first instance and, consequently, represents a new ground of appeal, production of which is prohibited by Article 42(2) and Article 118 of the Rules of Procedure.
Drugič, pritožbeni razlog, da naj bi Sodi�če prve stopnje določilo od�kodnino za izgubo gotovosti zaposlitve, ne pa za izgubo možnosti, naj ne bi bil navajan na prvi stopnji in naj bi zato pomenil nov pritožbeni razlog, katerega predložitev na podlagi členov 42(2) in 118 Poslovnika Sodi�ča ni dovoljena.
In any event, as to the merits, Mrs Girardot states that the damage she has suffered is actual and certain since the Commission’s unlawful refusal to examine her applications deprived her of the chance, first, to have one or several of them accepted and secondly, to subsequently express her interest in any other post if she had still
M.-C. Girardot v vsakem primeru glede temelja poudarja, da je �koda, ki jo je utrpela, dejanska in gotova, saj ji je bila z nezakonito zavrnitvijo obravnave njenih prijav s strani Komisije odvzeta možnost, da bi bila po eni strani ena ali več njenih
COMMISSION v GIRARDOT been entitled to do so.
KOMISIJA PROTI GIRARDOT prijav sprejetih in, po drugi strani, da bi se lahko kasneje ustrezno potegovala za drugo delovno mesto, če bi bila do tega �e upravičena.
That method is suited to the making good of damage resulting from the loss of an opportunity, which, by definition, is not certain to materialise.
Ta metoda naj bi bila prilagojena odpravi �kode zaradi izgube možnosti, za katero po definiciji ni gotovo, da se bo uresničila.
As regards the complaint that there may be discrimination between candidates in the same recruitment exercise, Mrs Girardot considers that it ignores the second part of the reasoning of the Court of First Instance, the objective of which is precisely to determine the factor to be applied to the established loss of income in the event that the chance of being recruited had materialised.
V zvezi s kritikami glede nevarnosti diskriminacije kandidatov v postopku zaposlovanja M.-C. Girardot meni, da te ne upo�tevajo drugega dela razlogovanja Sodi�ča prve stopnje, ki je namenjeno ravno temu, da se določi faktor, ki ga je treba uporabiti za ugotovljeno izgubo dohodkov, če bi se možnost uresničila.
Furthermore, it seems fair that, where the probability of recruitment is the same, the candidate who has suffered a greater loss of income should be awarded greater compensation than a candidate who has suffered a lesser loss of earnings.
Med drugim naj bi bilo primerno, da ob enaki možnosti zaposlitve kandidat, ki je utrpel pomembnej�o izgubo dohodkov, dobi vi�jo od�kodnino kot kandidat, ki je utrpel manj�o izgubo plačila.
These candidates not being in comparable situations, the principle of equal treatment is not infringed.
Ker kandidata nista v primerljivem položaju, naj kr�itev načela enakega obravnavanja ne bi mogla biti ugotovljena.
As regards, first, the objection of inadmissibility on the ground that the Court of Justice has no jurisdiction to assess the extent of the reparation for the damage suffered by Mrs Girardot, it must be borne in mind that, in accordance with settled case-law, when the Court of First Instance has found that there is damage, it is for that Court alone to assess, within the confines of the claim, how and to what extent
Prvič, glede ugovora nedopustnosti, da naj Sodi�če ne bi bilo pristojno za presojo obsega nadomestila �kode, ki jo je utrpela M.-C. Girardot, je treba opozoriti, da je v skladu s sodno prakso Sodi�če prve stopnje, ko ugotovi obstoj �kode, edino pristojno, da v okviru zahtevka oceni način in obseg nadomestila te �kode, pod pogojem, da so sodbe Sodi�ča prve stopnje dovolj utemeljene, da Sodi�če lahko izvr�uje sodni nadzor
However, in the present case, while it is true that the Commission disputes, by its appeal, the method used by the Court of First Instance to determine the extent of reparation for the damage suffered by Mrs Girardot, the Commission claims in that regard that the judgment under appeal is vitiated by several errors of law, in that the method in question, set out in paragraph 58 of that judgment and then applied in paragraphs 59 to 122 of that judgment, is equivalent, in reality, to an alteration of the form of the damage as it was described in that judgment, namely the loss of an opportunity to be recruited, and, consequently, to a misinterpretation of the essential nature of that damage, with the result that the damage actually determined in that judgment — according to the Commission, the loss of the certainty of being recruited and the loss of the corresponding remuneration — either is not actual or certain, or has no direct causal link with the alleged unlawful act.
V obravnavanem primeru pa, čeprav je res, da Komisija s svojo pritožbo izpodbija metodo, ki jo je Sodi�če prve stopnje uporabilo za določitev obsega nadomestila za �kodo, ki jo je utrpela M.-C. Girardot, v zvezi s tem zatrjuje, da izpodbijana sodba vsebuje več pravnih napak, saj ta metoda, ki je bila opredeljena v točki 58 izpodbijane sodbe in nato uporabljena v točkah od 59 do 122 navedene sodbe, dejansko spreminja naravo �kode, kot je bila opredeljena v izpodbijani sodbi, in sicer izgubo možnosti zaposlitve, in zato spreminja njeno vsebino, tako da �koda, ki je bila v izpodbijani sodbi dejansko ugotovljena – po mnenju Komisije je to izguba gotovosti zaposlitve in izguba pripadajočega plačila – bodisi ni niti dejanska niti gotova bodisi nima neposredne vzročne zveze z očitano nezakonitostjo.
Such a ground of appeal, which concerns the coherence of the reasoning adopted by the Court of First Instance to establish the method used to determine the extent of the reparation for the damage suffered, is a question of law which may be brought on appeal to the Court of Justice (see, to that effect, Lucaccioni v Commission, cited above, paragraphs 27 to 29).
Tak pritožbeni razlog, ki se nana�a na koherentnost razlogovanja Sodi�ča prve stopnje glede določitve metode, ki se uporabi za določitev obsega povrnitve utrpljene �kode, pa pomeni pravno vpra�anje, o katerem Sodi�če v okviru pritožbe lahko odloča (v tem smislu glej zgoraj navedeno sodbo Lucaccioni proti Komisiji, točke od 27 do 29).
On the other hand, as Mrs Girardot correctly states, the Commission cannot, by this appeal, request that this Court specify the manner in which the loss of an opportunity
Po drugi strani, kot pravilno zatrjuje M.-C. Girardot, Komisija s to pritožbo Sodi�ču ne more predlagati, naj določi način, na katerega je izgubo možnosti zaposlitve v
COMMISSION v GIRARDOT to be recruited by a Community institution must be assessed in every situation where a party has been unlawfully deprived of the right to have his application examined.
KOMISIJA PROTI GIRARDOT instituciji Skupnosti treba izračunati v vseh primerih, v katerih je bila zainteresirani osebi nezakonito odvzeta pravica, da se njena prijava obravnava.
In fact, the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice in an appeal is limited to review of the findings of law on the pleas argued before the Court of First Instance (see Commission v Brazzelli Lualdi and Others, cited above, paragraph 59).
Pristojnost Sodi�ča v okviru pritožbe je namreč omejena na presojo pravnih vpra�anj, ki so bila obravnavana na prvi stopnji (glej zgoraj navedeno sodbo Komisija proti Brazzelli Lualdi in drugi, točka 59).
It follows that the Court of Justice has jurisdiction, in this appeal, solely to examine whether the method adopted by the Court of First Instance in the judgment under appeal for the purposes of determining the extent of the reparation for the damage suffered resulting from the loss of an opportunity suffered by Mrs Girardot is vitiated by an error of law.
Iz tega izhaja, da je v okviru te pritožbe Sodi�če edino pristojno za presojo, ali je metoda, ki jo je Sodi�če prve stopnje uporabilo v izpodbijani sodbi, da bi določilo obseg povrnitve �kode, ki je nastala zaradi izgube možnosti in ki jo je utrpela M.-C. Girardot, pravno napačna.
The remainder of this appeal is inadmissible.
V preostalem delu ta pritožba ni dopustna.