natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
(a) To what extent do earlier acts of discrimination (public announcement of directly discriminatory selection criteria in April 2005) constitute ‘facts from which it may be presumed that there has been direct or indirect discrimination’ within the terms of Article 8(1) of [Directive 2000/43]?
a) Do katere mere dejstva pred diskriminacijo (javna izjava o merilih za izbor, ki so neposredno diskriminatorna, aprila 2005) pomenijo ‚dejstva, na podlagi katerih se lahko domneva, da je pri�lo do neposredne ali posredne diskriminacije‘ iz člena 8(1) Direktive [2000/43]?
(b) Does an established act of discrimination in April 2005 (public announcement in April 2005) subsequently give rise to a presumption of the continuation of a directly discriminatory recruitment policy?
b) Ali lahko diskriminacija iz aprila 2005 (javna izjava aprila 2005) pomeni potem domnevo o izvajanju neposredno diskriminatorne zaposlovalne politike?
Having regard to the
Ali zado�ča – upo�tevajoč dejstva iz spora o glavni stvari – za to, da se
2008 — CASE C-54/07 facts in the main proceedings, is it sufficient, in order to raise the presumption (that an employer operates and continues to pursue a discriminatory recruitment policy) that, in April 2005, in answer to the question whether, as an employer, he did not treat people from foreign and indigenous backgrounds in the same manner and was thus actually a bit racist, he publicly stated: ‘I must comply with my customers’ requirements.
2008 – ZADEVA C-54/07 porodi domneva (da delodajalec uporablja in nadaljuje z uporabo diskriminatorne politike zaposlovanja), da je aprila 2005 na vpra�anje, ali kot delodajalec ne obravnava različno oseb tujega porekla in oseb domačega porekla in ali ni torej nekoliko rasist, javno odgovoril: ‚Moram izpolniti zahteve svojih strank.
If you say “I want that particular product or I want it like this and like that”, and I say “I’m not doing it, I’ll send those people”, then you say “I don’t need that door”.
Če mi rečete: ‚hočem tak proizvod oziroma hočem to ali ono‘ in vam jaz rečem: ‚jaz tega ne delam, pripeljal vam bom te ljudi‘, vi pa mi odgovorite: ‚nočem va�ih vrat‘.
(c) Having regard to the facts in the main proceedings, can a joint press release issued by an employer and the national body for combating discrimin ation, in which acts of discrimination are at least implicitly confirmed by the employer, give rise to such a presumption?
Jaz hočem, da moja družba posluje dobro in da je na koncu leta promet realiziran, in kako to dosežem… To moram doseči tako, da se ravnam po željah stranke!‘ [?] c) Ali lahko, upo�tevajoč dejstva iz spora o glavni stvari, splo�no sporočilo za javnost delodajalca in državnega organa za boj proti diskriminaciji, v katerem so diskriminatorna dejstva vsaj implicitno pripoznana, poraja tako domnevo?
(d) Does the fact that an employer does not employ any fitters from ethnic minorities give rise to a presumption of indirect discrimination when that same employer some time previously had experienced great difficulty in recruiting fitters and, moreover, had also stated publicly that his customers did not like working with fitters who were immigrants?
d) Ali dejstvo, da delodajalec ne zaposluje monterjev tujega porekla, medtem ko se je ta isti delodajalec pred časom moral soočiti z velikimi težavami pri zaposlovanju monterjev, in javno izjavlja, da njegove stranke ne sodelujejo rade z monterji tujega porekla, poraja domnevo o neposredni diskriminaciji?
(e) Is one fact sufficient in order to raise a presumption of discrimination?
e) Ali eno samo dejstvo zado�ča za domnevo o diskriminaciji?
(f) Having regard to the facts in the main proceedings, can a presumption of discrimination on the part of the employer be inferred from the recruitment of exclusively indigenous fitters by an affiliated company of that employer?
f) Ali se lahko zgolj iz zaposlovanja monterjev z domačim poreklom s strani družbe, ki je povezana z delodajalcem, upo�tevajoč dejstva iz spora o glavni stvari, sklepa o domnevi o diskriminaciji s strani tega delodajalca?
FERYN discrimination within the meaning of Article 8(1) of Directive 2000/43 … be rebutted by a simple and unilateral statement by the employer in the press that he does not or does not any longer discriminate and that fitters from ethnic minorities are welcome; and/or by a simple declaration by the employer that his company, excluding the sister company, has filled all vacancies for fitters and/or by the statement that a Tunisian cleaning lady has been taken on and/or, having regard to the facts in the main proceedings, can the presumption be rebutted only by actual recruitment of fitters from ethnic minorities and/or by fulfilling commitments given in the joint press release?
2000/43[…] lahko izpodbita zgolj z navadno izjavo, ki jo je delodajalec dal za medije, da ne diskriminira oziroma da ne diskriminira več, ter da so monterji tujega porekla pri njem dobrodo�li; in/ali z navadno izjavo delodajalca, da so pri njem, z izjemo sestrske družbe, vsa delovna mesta monterjev zapolnili; in/ali z izjavo, da je bila zaposlena čistilka tunizijskega porekla; in/ali je lahko domneva izpodbita izključno z dejansko zaposlitvijo monterjev tujega porekla, upo�tevajoč dejstva iz spora o glavni stvari in/ali s spo�tovanjem sprejetih obveznosti iz splo�nega sporočila za javnost?
Having regard to the facts in the main proceedings, does the abovementioned requirement of Article 15 of Directive 2000/43 permit the national court merely to declare that there has been direct discrimination?
Ali pogoj iz člena 15 Direktive 2000/43[…] dopu�ča nacionalnemu sodi�ču, da se zadovolji z ugotovitvijo, da je pri�lo do neposredne diskriminacije, upo�tevajoč dejstva iz spora o glavni stvari?
Or does it, on the contrary, also require the national court to grant a prohibitory injunction, as provided for in national law?
Ali pa ta pogoj nalaga nacionalnemu sodi�ču, da izda odredbo o prenehanju, kot je to določeno z nacionalnim pravom?
Having regard to the facts in the main proceedings, to what extent is the national court further required to order the publication of the forthcoming judgment as an effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanction?’
Do katere mere mora nacionalno sodi�če odrediti objavo odločbe, ki bo izdana iz naslova učinkovite, sorazmerne in odvračilne sankcije, upo�tevajoč dejstva iz spora o glavni stvari?“
It should be noted, at the outset, that Article 234 EC does not empower the Court to apply rules of Community law to a particular case, but only to rule on the interpretation of the EC Treaty and of acts adopted by European Community institutions (see, inter alia, Case 100/63 van der Veen [1964] ECR 565, 572, and Case C-203/99 Veedfald [2001] ECR I-3569, paragraph 31).
Najprej je treba opozoriti, da člen 234 ES ne poobla�ča Sodi�ča, da uporabi pravila Skupnosti v določenem primeru, ampak le, da se izreče o razlagi Pogodbe ES in aktih, ki jih sprejmejo institucije Evropske skupnosti (glej zlasti sodbi z dne 15. julija 1964 v zadevi Van der Veen, 100/63, Recueil, str. 1105, 1121, in z dne 10. maja 2001 v zadevi Veedfald, C-203/99, Recueil, str.
The national court has requested the Court to interpret the provisions of Direct- ive 2000/43 for the purpose, essentially, of assessing the scope of the concept of direct discrimination in the light of the public statements made by an employer in the course of a recruitment procedure (first and second questions), the conditions in which the rule of the reversal of the burden of proof laid down in that directive can be applied (third to fifth questions) and what penalties may be considered appropriate in a case such as that in the main proceedings (sixth question).
Predložitveno sodi�če v bistvu prosi Sodi�če za razlago določb Direktive 2000/43 za presojo obsega pojma neposredne diskriminacije glede na javne izjave delodajalca v okviru postopka zaposlovanja (prvo in drugo vpra�anje), pogojev, v katerih se lahko uporabi pravilo obrnjenega dokaznega bremena s to isto direktivo (tretje, četrto in peto vpra�anje) in vrste sankcij, ki bi lahko �tele za ustrezne v takem primeru, kot je ta v sporu v glavni stvari (�esto vpra�anje).
With regard to the first and second questions, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland maintain that it is not possible for there to be direct discrimination within the meaning of Directive 2000/43, so that the direct- ive is inapplicable where the alleged discrimination results from public statements made by an employer concerning its recruitment policy but there is no identifiable complainant contending that he has been the victim of that discrimination.
Irska ter Združeno kraljestvo Velika Britanija in Severna Irska glede prvega in drugega vpra�anja zatrjujeta, da v tem primeru ni �lo za neposredno diskriminacijo v smislu Direktive 2000/43, tako da se ta naj ne bi uporabila, ker navedena diskrimina -cija izhaja iz javnih izjav delodajalca o svoji zaposlovalni politiki, ampak ni tožnika, ki bi ga bilo mogoče določiti in ki bi bil žrtev te diskriminacije.
It is true that, as those two Member States contend, Article 2(2) of Directive 2000/43 defines direct discrimination as a situation in which one person ‘is treated’ less favourably than another is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation on grounds of racial or ethnic origin.
Res je, kot to navajata ti dve državi članici, da člen 2(2) Direktive 2000/43 opredeljuje neposredno diskriminacijo kot položaj, v katerem se oseba zaradi rase oziroma narodnosti „obravnava“ manj ugodno, kakor se obravnava, se je obravnavala ali pa bi se obravnavala druga oseba v primerljivem položaju.
Likewise, Article 7 of that directive requires Member States to ensure that judicial procedures are available to ‘all persons who consider themselves wronged by failure to apply the principle of equal treatment to them’ and to public interest bodies bringing judicial proceedings ‘on behalf or in support of the complainant’.
Tudi člen 7 te direktive nalaga državam članicam, da zagotovijo, da so sodni postopki na voljo „vsem osebam, ki menijo, da jim je bila storjena krivica, ker ni bilo uporabljeno načelo enakega obravnavanja“, ter organom javnega interesa, da lahko sodelujejo v sodnem postopku „v imenu tožnika ali v podporo tožnika“.
Nevertheless, it cannot be inferred from this that the lack of an identifiable complainant leads to the conclusion that there is no direct discrimination within the meaning of Directive 2000/43.
Vendar iz tega ne izhaja, da se lahko, če ni tožnika, ki bi ga bilo mogoče določiti, sklepa o neobstoju kakr�nekoli neposredne diskriminacije v smislu Direktive.
The aim of that directive, as stated in recital 8 of its preamble, is ‘to foster conditions for a socially inclusive labour market’.
Njen cilj je namreč, kot je navedeno v njeni osmi uvodni izjavi, „vzpostaviti ugodnej�e pogoje za trg delovne sile, ki temelji na družbenih integracijah“. V ta namen
FERYN purpose, Article 3(1)(a) states that the directive covers, inter alia, selection criteria and recruitment conditions.
FERYN člen 3(1)(a) navedene direktive določa, da se ta direktiva uporablja zlasti v zvezi z izbirnimi merili in pogoji zaposlovanja.
The objective of fostering conditions for a socially inclusive labour market would be hard to achieve if the scope of Directive 2000/43 were to be limited to only those cases in which an unsuccessful candidate for a post, considering himself to be the victim of direct discrimination, brought legal proceedings against the employer.
Vzpostavitev ugodnej�ih pogojev za trg delovne sile, ki temelji na družbenih integracijah, bi bilo težko doseči, če bi bilo področje uporabe Direktive 2000/43 omejeno le na primere, ko bi kandidat, ki ni bil izbran za delovno mesto in ki meni, da je bil žrtev neposredne diskriminacije, sprožil sodni postopek zoper delodajalca.
The fact that an employer declares publicly that it will not recruit employees of a certain ethnic or racial origin, something which is clearly likely to strongly dissuade certain candidates from submitting their candidature and, accordingly, to hinder their access to the labour market, constitutes direct discrimination in respect of recruitment within the meaning of Directive 2000/43.
To, da je delodajalec javno izjavil, da ne bo zaposlil delavcev, ki so določene narodnosti oziroma rase, kar očitno resno odvrača nekatere kandidate, da bi predložili svoje kandidature, in s tem ustvarja oviro za njihov dostop do trga dela, namreč pomeni neposredno diskriminacijo pri zaposlovanju v smislu Direktive 2000/43.
The existence of such direct discrimination is not dependant on the identification of a complainant who claims to have been the victim.
Obstoj take neposredne diskriminacije ne predpostavlja, da je mogoče določiti tožnika, ki bi zatrjeval, da naj bi bil žrtev take diskriminacije.
The question of what constitutes direct discrimination within the meaning of Di -rective 2000/43 must be distinguished from that of the legal procedures provided for in Article 7 of that directive for a finding of failure to comply with the principle of equal treatment and the imposition of sanctions in that regard.
Vpra�anje, ali gre za neposredno diskriminacijo v smislu Direktive 2000/43, je treba za ugotavljanje in sankcioniranje neupo�tevanja načela enakega obravnavanja razločevati od vpra�anja pravnih sredstev, določenih v členu 7 te direktive.
Those legal procedures must, in accordance with the provisions of that article, be available to persons who consider that they have suffered discrimination.
Ta pravna sredstva morajo namreč, v skladu z določbami tega člena, biti odprta za osebe, ki menijo, da se jim je z diskriminacijo zgodila krivica.
However, the requirements of Article 7 of Directive 2000/43 are, as stated in Article 6 thereof, only minimum requirements and the Directive does not preclude Member States from introducing or maintaining provisions which are more favourable to the protection of the principle of equal treatment.
Predpisi člena 7 Direktive 2000/43 so kljub vsemu, kot je navedeno v členu 6 te direktive, le predpisi, ki določajo minimum, in navedena direktiva ne prepoveduje državam članicam, da sprejmejo ali ohranijo določbe, ki so bolj ugodne za varovanje načela enakega obravnavanja.
Consequently, Article 7 of Directive 2000/43 does not preclude Member States from laying down, in their national legislation, the right for associations with a legitimate interest in ensuring compliance with that directive, or for the body or bodies designated pursuant to Article 13 thereof, to bring legal or administrative proceedings to enforce the obligations resulting therefrom without acting in the name of a specific
Tako člen 7 Direktive 2000/43 nikakor ne nasprotuje temu, da države članice v svoji nacionalni zakonodaji določijo pravico za združenja, ki imajo zakonit interes pri zagotavljanju izpolnjevanja določb te direktive oziroma za organ ali organe, ustanovljene v skladu z njenim členom 13, da lahko sprožijo sodni oziroma upravni postopek, ki je določen za izpolnitev obveznosti iz navedene direktive, ne da bi ukrepali v imenu
2008 — CASE C-54/07 complainant or in the absence of an identifiable complainant.
2008 – ZADEVA C-54/07 določenega tožnika ali brez določljivega tožnika.
It is, however, solely for the national court to assess whether national legislation allows such a possibility.
O tem, ali nacionalna zakonodaja daje tako možnost, vendarle odloča le nacionalni sodnik.
In the light of the foregoing, the answer to the first and second questions must be that the fact that an employer states publicly that it will not recruit employees of a certain ethnic or racial origin constitutes direct discrimination in respect of recruitment within the meaning of Article 2(2)(a) of Directive 2000/43, such statements being likely strongly to dissuade certain candidates from submitting their candidature and, accordingly, to hinder their access to the labour market.
Glede na zgoraj navedeno je treba na prvo in drugo vpra�anje odgovoriti, da to, da je delodajalec javno izjavil, da ne bo zaposlil delavcev določene narodnosti oziroma rase, pomeni neposredno diskriminacijo pri zaposlovanju v smislu člena 2(2)(a) Direktive 2000/43, ker so take izjave tak�ne, da resno odvračajo nekatere kandidate, da bi predložili svoje kandidature, in s tem ustvarjajo oviro za njihov dostop do trga dela.
The third to fifth questions
Tretje, četrto in peto vprašanje
The third to fifth questions concern the application of the rule of the reversal of the burden of proof laid down in Article 8(1) of Directive 2000/43 to a situation in which the existence of a discriminatory recruitment policy is alleged by reference to remarks made publicly by an employer concerning its recruitment policy.
Tretje, četrto in peto vpra�anje se nana�ajo na vpra�anje, kako uporabiti pravilo obrnjenega dokaznega bremena, določeno v členu 8(1) Direktive 2000/43, v položaju, ko se obstoj diskriminatorne zaposlovalne politike navaja s sklicevanjem na besede, ki jih je javno izjavil delodajalec glede svoje politike zaposlovanja.
Article 8 of Directive 2000/43 states in that regard that, where there are facts from which it may be presumed that there has been direct or indirect discrimination, it is for the defendant to prove that there has been no breach of the principle of equal treatment.
Člen 8 Direktive 2000/43 v zvezi s tem določa, da mora toženec dokazati, da ni bilo kr�eno načelo enakega obravnavanja, če obstajajo dejstva, na podlagi katerih se lahko domneva, da je pri�lo do neposredne ali posredne diskriminacije.
The precondition of the obligation to adduce evidence in rebuttal which thus arises for the alleged perpetrator of the discrimination is a simple finding that a presumption of discrimination has arisen on the basis of established facts.
Obveznost predložitve nasprotnega dokaza, ki torej bremeni domnevnega storilca diskriminacije, je odvisna le od ugotovitve domneve o diskriminaciji, če ta temelji na dokazanih dejstvih.
Statements by which an employer publicly lets it be known that, under its recruitment policy, it will not recruit any employees of a certain ethnic or racial origin may constitute facts of such a nature as to give rise to a presumption of a discriminatory recruitment policy.
Izjave, s katerimi delodajalec javno naznani, da v okviru svoje zaposlovalne politike ne bo zaposlil delavcev določene narodnosti oziroma rase, so lahko taka dejstva, na podlagi katerih je mogoče domnevati o diskriminatorni zaposlovalni politiki.
It is, thus, for that employer to adduce evidence that it has not breached the principle of equal treatment, which it can do, inter alia, by showing that the actual recruitment practice of the undertaking does not correspond to those statements.
Zato mora ta delodajalec predložiti dokaze, da ni kr�il načela enakega obravnavanja, kar lahko stori zlasti z dokazovanjem, da se dejanska zaposlovalna praksa podjetja ne sklada s temi izjavami.
It is for the national court to verify that the facts alleged against that employer are established and to assess the sufficiency of the evidence which the employer adduces in support of its contentions that it has not breached the principle of equal treatment.
Predložitveno sodi�če mora preveriti, ali so dejstva, ki se očitajo navedenemu delodajalcu, dokazana, in presoditi, ali so dejstva, ki jih delodajalec navaja v utemeljitev svojih trditev – da ni kr�il načela enakega obravnavanja –, zadostna.
Consequently, the answer to the third to fifth questions must be that public statements by which an employer lets it be known that under its recruitment policy it will not recruit any employees of a certain ethnic or racial origin are sufficient for a presumption of the existence of a recruitment policy which is directly discriminatory within the meaning of Article 8(1) of Directive 2000/43.
Zato je treba na tretje, četrto in peto vpra�anje odgovoriti, da javne izjave, s katerimi delodajalec naznani, da v okviru svoje zaposlovalne politike ne bo zaposloval delavcev določene narodnosti oziroma rase, zado�čajo za domnevo, v smislu člena 8(1) Direktive 2000/43, o obstoju neposredno diskriminatorne zaposlovalne politike.
It is then for that employer to prove that there was no breach of the principle of equal treatment.
Zato mora ta delodajalec dokazati, da ni bilo kr�itve načela enakega obravnavanja.
It can do so by showing that the undertaking’s actual recruitment practice does not correspond to those statements.
To lahko stori z dokazovanjem, da se dejanska zaposlovalna politika podjetja ne sklada s temi izjavami.
It is for the national court to verify that the facts alleged are established and to assess the sufficiency of the evidence submitted in support of the employer’s contentions that it has not breached the principle of equal treatment.
Predložitveno sodi�če pa mora preveriti, ali so očitana dejstva dokazana, in presoditi, ali so dejstva, navedena v utemeljitev trditev tega delodajalca – da ni kr�il načela enakega obravnavanja –, zadostna.
The sixth question
Šesto vprašanje
The sixth question asks, essentially, what sanctions may be considered to be appropriate for employment discrimination established on the basis of the employer’s public statements.
Šesto vpra�anje se v bistvu nana�a na vpra�anje, katere sankcije lahko �tejejo za primerne za diskriminacijo pri zaposlovanju, ki je dokazana na podlagi javnih izjav delodajalca.
Article 15 of Directive 2000/43 confers on Member States responsibility for determining the rules on sanctions for breaches of national provisions adopted pursuant to that directive.
Člen 15 Direktive 2000/43 nalaga državam članicam, da določijo pravila o sankcijah, ki se uporabljajo pri kr�itvah nacionalnih določb, sprejetih v skladu s to direktivo. Ta
2008 — CASE C-54/07 tionate and dissuasive and that they may comprise the payment of compensation to the victim.
2008 – ZADEVA C-54/07 člen tudi določa, da morajo biti te sankcije učinkovite, sorazmerne in odvračilne ter da lahko zajemajo tudi plačilo nadomestila žrtvi.
Article 15 of Directive 2000/43 thus imposes on Member States the obligation to introduce into their national legal systems measures which are sufficiently effect- ive to achieve the aim of that directive and to ensure that they may be effectively relied upon before the national courts in order that judicial protection will be real and effective.
Člen 15 Direktive 2000/43 poleg tega nalaga državam članicam, da morajo v svojem notranjem pravnem redu sprejeti ukrepe, ki so v praksi dovolj učinkoviti za doseganje cilja te direktive, in poskrbeti za to, da se ti ukrepi dejansko lahko uveljavljajo pred nacionalnimi sodi�či, da se zagotovi dejansko in učinkovito sodno varstvo.
Directive 2000/43 does not, however, prescribe a specific sanction, but leaves Member States free to choose between the different solutions suitable for achieving its objective.
Vendar pa Direktiva 2000/43 ne predpisuje določenih sankcij, ampak državam članicam prepu�ča, da same izberejo med različnimi re�itvami, primernimi za doseganje cilja, ki ga določa ta direktiva.
In a case such as that referred by the national court, where there is no direct victim of discrimination but a body empowered to do so by law seeks a finding of discrim -ination and the imposition of a penalty, the sanctions which Article 15 of Direct- ive 2000/43 requires to be laid down in national law must also be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.
V takem primeru, kot ga je predložitveno sodi�če predložilo Sodi�ču, ko ni neposredne žrtve diskriminacije, ampak organ, ki je poobla�čen z zakonom, zahteva ugotovitev in sankcioniranje diskriminacije, morajo biti sankcije, za katere člen 15 Direktive 2000/43 zahteva, da se določijo v nacionalnem pravu, prav tako učinkovite, sorazmerne in odvračilne.