natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Landesgericht Bozen (Regional Court, Bolzano) has referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC a question asking whether Italian administrative provisions are compatible with Community employment law.
LandesGericht Bozen na podlagi člena 234 ES postavlja vpra�anje za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, ki se nana�a na njegove dvome o skladnosti italijanskega upravnega prava s socialnim pravom Skupnosti.
Specifically, the referring court raises the question of the validity of national legislation which requires employers to submit, within 30 days of their conclusion, a copy of all the parttime employment contracts they enter into.
Nacionalno sodi�če spra�uje Sodi�če predvsem o zakonitosti nacionalnih predpisov, ki delodajalce zavezujejo, da po�ljejo kopije vseh pogodb o zaposlitvi s kraj�im delovnim časom v tridesetih dneh od sklenitve navedenih pogodb.
That obligation, which is accompanied by stringent administrative penalties for cases of non-compliance, should be consistent with Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the Framework Agreement on parttime work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC. 2
Ta obveznost, ki jo spremlja strog sistem upravnih kazni za primere neizpolnitve obveznosti, mora biti v skladu z Direktivo Sveta 97/81/ES z dne 15. decembra 1997 o okvirnem sporazumu o delu s kraj�im delovnim časom, sklenjenim med UNICE, CEEP in ETUC. 2
Although the Court has previously interpreted Directive 97/81, this is the first time it has been asked to rule on discrimination which is not the result of the substantive provisions of the contract but rather of the administrative obligations imposed on
Čeprav je Sodi�če Direktivo 97/81 že razlagalo, mora zdaj prvič preučiti diskriminacijo, ki ne izhaja iz vsebine pogodbe, ampak iz upravnih formalnosti, ki so delodajalcem
In 1997, the European Community adopted Directive 97/81 for the purpose of implementing the Framework Agreement on
Evropska skupnost je leta 1997 odobrila Direktivo 97/81 za izvajanje okvirnega spora-
OPINION OF MR RUIZ-JARABO — JOINED CASES C-55/07 AND C-56/07 parttime work concluded between the European social partners.
SKLEPNI PREDLOGI RUIZ-JARABOJA – ZDRUŽENI ZADEVI C-55/07 IN C-56/07 zuma, ki so ga evropski socialni partnerji sklenili na področju dela s kraj�im delovnim časom.
The directive sought, on the one hand, to abolish discrimination against parttime workers and, on the other, to encourage the development of that type of employment contract.
Namen sprejetja te ureditve je bil po eni strani odpraviti diskriminacijo delavcev, zaposlenih s kraj�im delovnim časom, po drugi strani pa spodbujati razvoj take vrste pogodb o zaposlitvi.
Clauses 4 and 5 of the Framework Agreement are of particular note:
Zlasti pomembni sta določbi 4 in 5 okvirnega sporazuma:
Where justified by objective reasons, Member States after consultation of the social partners in accordance with national law, collective agreements or practice and/or social partners may, where appropriate, make access to particular conditions of employment subject to a period of service, time worked or earnings qualification.
Kadar je upravičeno s stvarnimi razlogi, lahko države članice – in/ali socialni part -nerji – po posvetovanju s socialnimi partnerji in na podlagi nacionalnega prava, kolektivnih pogodb ali prakse, če je primerno, omejijo posebne pogoje za zaposlitev s trajanjem zaposlitve, delovno dobo ali zaslužkom.
Qualifications relating to access by parttime workers to particular conditions of employment should be reviewed periodically having regard to the principle of nondiscrimination as expressed in Clause 4.1.
Omejitve, ki veljajo za delavce, zaposlene s kraj�im delovnim časom, in se nana�ajo na dostopnost posebnih pogojev, je treba občasno pregledati z vidika načela nediskriminacije, zapisanega v določbi 4.1.
‘Clause 4: Principle of nondiscrimination
„Določba 4: Načelo nediskriminacije
Clause 5: Opportunities for parttime work
Določba 5: Možnosti za delo s kraj�im delovnim časom
In respect of employment conditions, parttime workers shall not be treated in a less favourable manner than comparable fulltime workers solely because they work part time unless different treatment is justified on objective grounds.
Pogoji zaposlitve delavcev, zaposlenih s kraj�im delovnim časom, ne smejo biti manj ugodni od pogojev primerljivih delavcev, zaposlenih s polnim delovnim časom, zgolj zato, ker delajo kraj�i delovni čas. Te delavce se sme različno obravnavati le iz stvarnih razlogov.
In the context of Clause 1 of this Agreement and of the principle of nondiscrimination between parttime and fulltime workers:
Po določbi 1 tega sporazuma in načelu nediskriminacije delavcev, zaposlenih s kraj�im delovnim časom, in delavcev, zaposlenih s polnim delovnim časom:
MICHAELER AND OTHERS concerning equal treatment or opportunities for men and women.’
MICHAELER IN DRUGI o enaki obravnavi ali možnosti mo�kih in žensk.“
(b) the social partners, acting within their sphere of competence and through the procedures set out in collective agreements, should identify and review obstacles which may limit opportunities for parttime work and, where appropriate, eliminate them.
(b) morajo socialni partnerji glede na svoje pristojnosti in po postopku, določenem v kolektivnih pogodbah, opredeliti in presoditi okvire, ki lahko omejujejo možnosti za delo s kraj�im delovnim časom, in jih, kjer je primerno, odpraviti.
The provisions concerning equal treatment to which the Framework Agreement refers are, principally, Council Direct- ive 75/117/EEC of 10 February 1975 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the application of the principle of equal pay for men and women, 4 and Council 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.
Ti predpisi na področju enakosti, na katere se sklicuje okvirni sporazum, sta predvsem Direktiva Sveta 75/117/EGS z dne 10. februarja 1975 o približevanju zakonodaje držav članic v zvezi z uporabo načela enakega plačila za mo�ke in ženske 4ter Direktiva 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.
5Article 3 of Directive 76/207 is particularly relevant to these proceedings:
5V tej zadevi je zlasti pomemben člen 3 Direkti- ve 76/207:
As I have stated, the purpose of Direct- ive 97/81 is to combat the unequal treatment of different types of employment contract. However, the directive is also concerned, as a secondary but equally important aim, with discrimination on grounds of sex.
Kot je bilo navedeno, je namen Direktive 97/81 boj proti različnemu obravnavanju določenih vrst pogodb o zaposlitvi, vendar pa njeno besedilo – sekundarno, čeprav pomembno – vsebuje vidik, ki je povezan z diskriminacijo na podlagi spola.
Indeed, recital 5 in the preamble to the directive states that ‘the conclusions of the Essen European Council stressed the need to take measures to promote employment and equal opportunities for women and men.’
V peti uvodni izjavi navedene direktive je določeno, da „je Evropski svet v zaključkih zasedanja v Essnu poudaril potrebo po ukrepih za pospe�evanje zaposlovanja in enakih možnosti žensk in mo�kih“.
Similarly, Clause 6(4) of the Framework Agreement establishes that the provisions on parttime work and the provisions on nondiscrimination on grounds of sex are interdependent:
Poleg tega je v določbi 6(4) okvirnega sporazuma potrjena medsebojna odvisnost predpisov o delu s kraj�im delovnim časom in predpisov o nediskriminaciji na podlagi spola.
Application of the principle of equal treatment means that there shall be no discrimination whatsoever on grounds of sex in the conditions, including selection criteria, for access to all jobs or posts, whatever the sector or branch of activity, and to all levels of the occupational hierarchy.
Uporaba načela enakega obravnavanja pomeni, da ne sme biti nobene diskriminacije na podlagi spola pri pogojih, vključno z merili izbiranja, za dostop do vseh delovnih mest, ne glede na področje ali vrsto dejavnosti, in do vseh ravni poklice hierarhije.
5 — The two directives were recently recast in 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 (OJ 2006 L 204, p. 23).
5 – Ti dve direktivi sta bili pred kratkim spremenjeni z Direktivo 2006/54/ES 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 (UL L 204, str. 23).
However, the facts of the present case occurred before the adoption of Directive 2006/54, and therefore it is not applicable.
Vendar so se dejstva v tej zadevi zgodila pred sprejetjem Direktive 2006/54, tako da se ta zanje ne uporablja.
‘This Agreement shall be without prejudice to any more specific Community provisions, and in particular Community provisions
„Ta sporazum ne vpliva na nobene podrobnej�e predpise Skupnosti, zlasti ne na določbe
To this end, Member States shall take the measures necessary to ensure that:
V ta namen države članice sprejmejo potrebne ukrepe, da zagotovijo naslednje:
Article 2 of Legislative Decree 61/2000 of 25 February 2000 6 imposes on employers the
Člen 2 zakonske uredbe �t. 61/2000 z dne 25. februarja 2000 6delodajalcu nalaga obveznost, da v tridesetih dneh od sklenitve pogodbe o zaposlitvi s kraj�im delovnim časom po�lje kopijo navedene pogodbe pristojni pokrajinski direkciji in�pektorata za delo in socialno varnost.
(a) any laws, regulations and administrative provisions contrary to the principle of equal treatment shall be abolished; obligation to send, no later than 30 days after the conclusion of a parttime contract, a copy of that contract to the competent provincial employment and social security inspectorate.
(a) vsi zakoni in drugi predpisi, ki so v nasprotju z načelom enakega obravnavanja, se odpravijo;
In accordance with Article 8 of the Legislative Decree, failure to comply with that requirement attracts an administrative penalty of EUR 15 for each employee concerned and for each day of delay.
Neizpolnitev te obveznosti je bila v skladu s členom 8 navedene zakonske uredbe kaznovana z upravno kaznijo v vi�ini 15 EUR za vsakega zadevnega delavca in za vsak dan zamude.
No provision is made for any quantitative limit on the penalty or for any grounds for mitigation or aggravation based on the degree of culpability of the infringer.
Za kazen ni bila določena nobena zgornja meja in ne predvidene olaj�evalne ali oteževalne okoli�čine glede na stopnjo krivde storilca kr�itve.
(b) any provisions contrary to the principle of equal treatment which are included in collective agreements, individual contracts of employment, internal rules of undertakings or in rules governing the independent occupations and professions shall be, or may be declared, null and void or may be amended;
(b) vse določbe, ki so v nasprotju z načelom enakega obravnavanja in so vključene v kolektivne pogodbe, individualne pogodbe o zaposlitvi, notranja pravila podjetja ali pa v pravila, ki urejajo samostojne poklice, so ali se razglasijo za nične, ali pa se spremenijo;
In 2003, three years after the entry into force of Legislative Decree 61/2000, Article 2 was repealed.
Leta 2003, to je tri leta po začetku veljavnosti zakonske uredbe �t. 61/2000, je bil člen 2 razveljavljen.
7 Nevertheless, since the principle of tempus regit actum governs this field in Italy, the provisions abolishing the infringements and the administrative penalties cannot have favourable retroactive effect.
7Ker pa zadevno področje v Italiji ureja načelo tempus regit actum, ni mogoča pro bono retroaktivna uporaba določb o razveljavitvi upravnih kr�itev in kazni.
(c) those laws, regulations and administrative provisions contrary to the principle of equal treatment when the concern for protection which originally inspired them is no longer well founded shall be revised; and that where similar provisions are included in collective agreements labour and management shall be requested to undertake the desired revision.’
(c) tisti zakoni ali drugi predpisi, ki so nasprotni načelu enakega obravnavanja, se revidirajo takrat, ko dejavniki, ki so prvotno sprožili njihov nastanek, niso več utemeljeni; tam, kjer so podobne določbe vključene v kolektivne pogodbe, se od delavcev in delodajalcev zahteva, da naredijo zaželeno revizijo.“
III — The facts
III – Dejansko stanje
IV — The question referred for a preliminary ruling and the procedure before the Court of Justice
IV – Vprašanje za predhodno odločanje in postopek pred Sodiščem
The Landesgericht Bozen, which is fully aware of the Community and national legal frameworks, has referred the following question to the Court:
Landesgericht Bozen ob polnem poznavanju normativnega okvira Skupnosti in nacionalnega normativnega okvira Sodi�ču postavlja to vpra�anje:
The Landesgericht Bozen explains in the order for reference that Ruth Volgger, Othmar Michaeler and Subito GmbH infringed Article 2 of Legislative Decree 61/2000.
V predložitvenem sklepu Landesgericht Bozen je navedeno, da so Ruth Volgger, Othmar Michaeler in družba Subito kr�ili člen 2 zakonske uredbe �t. 61/2000.
Despite the brief account of the facts, it is clear from the order that the Arbeitsinspektorat der Autonomen Provinz Bozen (Employment and Social Security Inspectorate of the Autonomous Province of Bolzano) imposed on Mr Michaeler and Subito GmbH a penalty in the form of a fine of EUR 216 750.
Iz predložitvenega sklepa je kljub jedrnatemu opisu dejanskega stanja razvidno, da je Arbeitsinspektorat der Autonomen Provinz Bozen (In�pektorat za delo avtonomne pokrajine Bolzano) O. Michaelerju in družbi Subito naložil kazen v vi�ini 216.750 EUR.
The reference for a preliminary ruling in Case C-55/07 was made in the action contesting the decision to impose the penalty.
Vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje v zadevi C-55/07 je bilo postavljeno v okviru tožbe zoper odločbo o naložitvi te kazni. V istem času je bila R. Volgger, O.
By order of 18 April 2007, the President of the Court joined the two cases in the light of their objective connection.
Predsednik Sodi�ča je s sklepom z dne 18. aprila 2007 združil zadevi zaradi objektivne povezanosti.
During the written stage, observations were lodged by the Italian Government
V pisnem postopku sta stali�ča predložili italijanska vlada in Komisija.
The order for reference does not provide any more factual information but, as I will explain below, the uncertainty which has arisen necessitates an essentially abstract analysis of the applicable provisions.
Predložitveni sklep ne vsebuje drugih dejstev, vendar – kot bom predstavil v nadaljevanju – nastali dvom zahteva povsem abstraktno analizo veljavnih predpisov.
Accordingly, there is no reason why the Court should not give a preliminary ruling in the present proceedings.
Torej ni nobenega zadržka, da Sodi�če odloči o tem predlogu za sprejetje predhodne odločbe.
OPINION OF MR RUIZ-JARABO — JOINED CASES C-55/07 AND C-56/07 and the Commission. Since a hearing was not requested, after the general meeting of 27 November 2007, the case became ready for the preparation of this opinion.
SKLEPNI PREDLOGI RUIZ-JARABOJA – ZDRUŽENI ZADEVI C-55/07 IN C-56/07 seji 27. novembra 2007 stanje postopka dovoljevalo pripravo teh sklepnih predlogov.
nondiscrimination on grounds of sex. As the Italian Court points out, the unequal treatment of parttime and fulltime contracts is liable to give rise to indirect discrimination, since women are a group particularly likely to be recruited under the former type of contract.
kraj�im delovnim časom in pogodb o zaposlitvi s polnim delovnim časom povzroči posredno diskriminacijo, ker so ženske skupina, posebno povezana s prvo vrsto pogodb.
The ambiguity with which the applicable legal framework is described necessitates an explanation of the role of the principle of nondiscrimination on grounds of sex in the Directives on equal treatment.
Dvoumnost opisa veljavnega normativnega okvira spodbuja k temu, da se popravi vloga načela prepovedi diskriminacije na podlagi spola v direktivah na področju enakosti. Za pripravo koristnega odgovora se je treba na kratko ustaviti pri nekaterih splo�nih vidikih sistema virov prava Skupnosti.
A — A preliminary consideration: the relationship between the general principles of law and Directives 97/81 and 76/207
A – Uvodne opombe: odnos med splošnimi pravnimi načeli ter direktivama 97/81 in 76/207
The impact of the general principles of law on Community directives has not always been straightforward.
Pred preizkusom temelja zadeve je treba podrobneje pojasniti upo�tevni pravni okvir.
The emergence of open, indeterminate rules like the principles, together with the teleological nature of directives, is liable to confuse courts when it comes to applying clear criteria in order to resolve a dispute.
Kot izhaja iz predložitvenega sklepa, Landesgericht Bozen dvomi, da so zadevni italijanski ukrepi združljivi z Direktivo 97/81 in „določbami prava Skupnosti“.
The interwoven, complex influence which the two sources of law have on one another calls for clarification.
Iz zadnjega izraza in obrazložitve predložitvenega sklepa je mogoče sklepati, da nacionalno sodi�če dvomi o skladnosti italijanskega pravnega reda z drugimi evropskimi predpisi.
Before dealing with the substance of the case, it is necessary to identify the applicable legal framework.
Vpliv splo�nih pravnih načel na direktive Skupnosti ni bil vedno brez težav.
In the order for reference, the Landesgericht Bozen asks whether the disputed Italian measures are compatible with Directive 97/81 and ‘with Community law’.
Pojav odprtih in nedoločenih pravil, kot so ta načela, skupaj s teleolo�ko naravo Direktive lahko zavede uporabnike prava, kadar je treba uporabiti jasna merila, ki omogočajo re�itev spora.
The general principles of law perform a heterogeneous function in the Community legal system. On the one hand, they are legal rules comparable to rules of primary
Splo�na pravna načela izpolnjujejo raznovrstno funkcijo v pravnem redu Evropske unije: prvič, so pravna pravila, ki so podobna pravilom primarnega prava, neodvisna in določajo veljavnost akta sekundarnega prava
In my view, that reference to Community law concerns the principle of
To sklicevanje na „določbe prava Skupnosti“ se po mojem mnenju nana�a na načelo prepovedi diskriminacije na podlagi spola.
MICHAELER AND OTHERS parameters in accordance with other rules and as criteria for interpretation.
MICHAELER IN DRUGI ali uporabo nacionalnega pravila; 8drugič, dopolnjujejo razlago drugega pravila primarnega ali sekundarnega prava, vključno z nacionalnim pravom, ne da bi pridobila popolno neodvisnost, vendar pa močno pogojujejo re�itev konkretnega primera. 9
In Mangold, 10the Court held that it was possible for a general principle of law to apply where a directive could not be relied on in the case owing to its subject-matter, its lack of effectiveness in horizontal relationships, and the fact that the period for its transposition had not yet expired.
Sodi�če je v sodbi Mangold 10menilo, da se splo�no pravno načelo lahko uporablja, če se na direktivo zaradi njene vsebine, neobstoja horizontalnega neposrednega učinka in odprtega roka za prenos v sporu ni mogoče sklicevati.
The legislation in issue in Mangold was Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation.
Predpis, ki se je obravnaval v zadevi Mangold, je bila Direktiva Sveta 2000/78/ES z dne 27. novembra 2000 o splo�nih okvirih enakega obravnavanja pri zaposlovanju in delu.
11However, the Court resolved the difficulty in applying the directive by acknowledging the autonomy of the general principle of nondiscrimination on grounds of age.
11 Sodi�če je težavo pri uporabi te direktive re�ilo s tem, da je priznalo neodvisnost splo�nega načela prepovedi diskriminacije na podlagi starosti.
12 Where the Community legislature had not ensured protection by means of a directive, the Court of Justice found a solution by relying on a general principle of law.
12Česar zakonodajalec Skupnosti ni za�čitil z direktivo, je Sodi�če zagotovilo s splo�nim pravnim načelom.
8 — Although national courts have a duty to refrain from applying national provisions which conflict with Community law (judgment in Case 106/77 Simmenthal [1978] ECR 629, paragraphs 21 to 24), on occasion they must set such provisions aside (judgment in Case 167/73 Commission v France [1974] ECR 359, paragraph 35).
8 – Čeprav je nacionalno sodi�če zavezano, da ne uporablja nacionalnih predpisov, ki so v nasprotju s pravom Skupnosti (sodba z dne 9. marca 1978 v zadevi Simmenthal, 106/77, Recueil, str. 629, točke od 21 do 24), jih mora včasih odpraviti (sodba z dne 4. aprila 1974 v zadevi Komisija proti Franciji, 167/73, Recueil, str.
That is the case where there is incompatibility between Community provisions and national administrative provisions, the assessment and subsequent annulment of which may be performed by the courts of a number of Member States.
359, točka 35). To velja za nezdružljivost predpisov Skupnosti in nacionalnih upravnih predpisov, ki jih sodi�ča več držav članic lahko preučijo in nato razveljavijo.
That situation confirms that there is not a clear relationship of ‘primacy’ (based on applicability) between Community law and national law, as opposed to a relationship of ‘supremacy’ (founded on validity), since, in some cases, that distinction is distorted. Ferreres Comella, V., ‘La Constitución española ante la cláusula de primacía del Derecho de la Unión Europea’, in Closa Montero, C. (ed.), Constitución española y Constitución europea. Análisis de la Declaración del Tribunal Constitucional, Centro de Estudios Políticos y Constitucionales, Madrid, 2005, p. 92.
To dejstvo potrjuje, da med pravom Skupnosti in nacionalnim pravnim redom ni enotnega odnosa „primarnosti“ (ki temelji na uporabi) v nasprotju z odnosom „prevlade“ (ki temelji na veljavnosti), ker je ta razlika v nekaterih primerih zmanj�ana. Ferreres Comella, V., La Constitución española ante la cláusula de primacía del Derecho de la Unión Europea, v Closa Montero, C. (ur.), Constitución española y Constitución europea. Análisis de la Declaración del Tribunal Constituci­onal, Centro de Estudios Políticos y Constitucionales, Madrid, 2005, str. 92.
16.12 — Judgment in Mangold, cited in footnote 10, paragraph 75.13 — Case C-411/05 Palacios de la Villa [2007] ECR I-8531.
Prva pokrivajo praznine prava Skupnosti, druga imajo vi�jo normativno nalogo (svobo�čine, subsidiarnost ali institucionalna zvestoba), tretja pa se uporabljajo predvsem kot merila analize posamičnih aktov (sorazmernost, enakost, pravna varnost …).
OPINION OF MR RUIZ-JARABO — JOINED CASES C-55/07 AND C-56/07 a whole.
SKLEPNI PREDLOGI RUIZ-JARABOJA – ZDRUŽENI ZADEVI C-55/07 IN C-56/07 ocenil za �kodljivo za pravni red v celoti.
14I share the view of the advocate general, since the subsidiary applicability of the principles not only gives rise to a lack of legal certainty but also distorts the nature of the system of sources, converting typical Community acts into merely decorative rules which may be easily replaced by the general principles.
14Strinjam se z generalnim pravobranilcem, saj podredna uporaba splo�nih načel lahko ne samo povzroči pravno negotovost, ampak tudi izkrivlja sistem virov, saj tipične akte Skupnosti spreminja v okrasna pravila, ki jih je mogoče zlahka zamenjati s splo�nimi načeli.
15 matters which fall within the scope of that directive, it would seriously detract from the latter’s function and nature.
15 ki spadajo na področje njene uporabe, urejali s splo�nimi načeli, bi bila njeni funkcija in narava zaradi tega resno spremenjeni.
It would be preferable, where they are invoked in cases concerning directives, if the general principles of law acted as criteria for interpretation.
Zato se zdi bolj zaželeno, da splo�na pravna načela, ki se zatrjujejo v zadevi, v kateri se sklicuje na direktive, delujejo kot merila razlage.