natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
those rules of national law is consistent with the principle of non-discrimination, as recognised by the Community legal order, in accordance with which comparable situations must not be treated differently unless such difference in treatment is objectively justified.
z načelom prepovedi diskriminacije, kot je priznano s pravnim redom Skupnosti in v skladu s katerim se primerljive okoli�čine ne smejo obravnavati različno, razen če je razlikovanje objektivno utemeljeno.
Where Directive 2002/74 amending Directive 80/987 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer has not been transposed into national law by the deadline for its transposition, the possible direct effect of the first paragraph of Article 3 of Directive 80/987 cannot be relied upon in relation to a state of insolvency which occurred before that date.
Če do prenosa Direktive 2002/74 o spremembi Direktive 80/987 o približevanju zakonodaje držav članic o varstvu delavcev v primeru plačilne nesposobnosti njihovega delodajalca v notranje pravo ne pride do izteka roka za prenos, se v zvezi s stanjem plačilne nesposobnosti, do katerega je pri�lo pred tem datumom, ni mogoče sklicevati na morebiten neposredni učinek člena 3, prvi odstavek, Direktive 80/987.
(see para. 30, operative part 1)
(Glej točko 30 in točko 1 izreka.)
In that regard, workers who have been unfairly dismissed are in a comparable situation in so far as they are entitled to compensation in the event that they are not reinstated.
V zvezi s tem so protipravno odpu�čeni delavci v primerljivem položaju, ker imajo, če jim ni omogočena vrnitev na delo, pravico do od�kodnine.
Therefore, rules of national law which exclude from the responsibilities of the guarantee institutions claims corresponding to compensation for unfair dismissal established by conciliation procedure, are contrary to that principle of equal treatment, unless a difference in treatment for those claims as compared to claims for unfair dismissal, awarded by judgment, or administrative decision, may be objectively justified.
Zato je nacionalna ureditev, s katero je izključeno, da bi jamstvena ustanova poplačala terjatve iz naslova od�kodnin zaradi protipravne odpovedi pogodbe o zaposlitvi, priznanih v postopku sodne poravnave, ne da bi bila različna obravnava navedenih terjatev glede na terjatve, ki ustrezajo od�kodninam zaradi protipravne pogodbe o zaposlitvi, priznanim s sodbo ali z upravno odločbo, objektivno utemeljeno, v nasprotju z načelom enakosti.
Where rules of national law fall within the scope of Directive 80/987, relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer, as amended by Directive 2002/74, the national courts are bound, as regards a state of insolvency occurring between the date of the entry into force of Directive 2002/74 and the deadline for transposition of that directive into national law, to ensure that the application of
Kadar spada nacionalna ureditev na področje uporabe Direktive 80/987 o varstvu delavcev v primeru plačilne nesposobnosti njihovega delodajalca, kakor je bila spremenjena z Direktivo 2002/74, mora nacionalno sodi�če v zvezi s stanjem plačilne nesposobnosti, do katerega je pri�lo med datumom začetka veljavnosti slednje direktive in datumom izteka roka za njen prenos, zagotoviti uporabo te nacionalne ureditve skladno
(see paras 36, 37, 39, operative part 2)
(Glej točke 36, 37, 39 in točko 2 izreka.)
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber)17 January 2008 *
SODBA SODIŠČA (četrti senat) z dne 17. januarja 2008*
REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Juzgado de lo Social Único de Algeciras (Spain), made by decision of 7 April 2006, received at the Court on 2 June 2006, in the proceedings
V zadevi C-246/06, katere predmet je predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe na podlagi člena 234 ES, ki ga je vložilo Juzgado de lo Social Único de Algeciras (Španija) z odločbo z dne 7. aprila 2006, ki je prispela na Sodi�če 2. junija 2006, v postopku
* Language of the case: Spanish.
* Jezik postopka: �pan�čina.
2008 — CASE C-246/06
2008 – ZADEVA C-246/06 generalni pravobranilec: P. Mengozzi, sodni tajnik: R.
This reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Council Direct ive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer (OJ 1980 L 283, p.
Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe se nana�a na razlago Direktive Sveta 80/987/EGS z dne 20. oktobra 1980 o varstvu delavcev v primeru plačilne nesposobnosti delodajalca (UL L 283, str.
23), as amended by Directive 2002/74/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 (OJ 2002 L 270, p.
23), kakor je bila spremenjena z Direktivo 2002/74/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 23. septembra 2002 (UL L 270, str.
10) (‘Directive 80/987’).
10, v nadaljevanju: Direktiva 80/987).
Legislative framework
Pravni okvir
Community legislation
Skupnostna ureditev
Article 1(1) of Directive 80/987 provides that ‘[t]his Directive shall apply to employees’ claims arising from contracts of employment or employment relationships and existing against employers who are in a state of insolvency within the meaning of Article 2(1)’.
Člen 1(1) Direktive 80/987 določa, da se „[t]a direktiva […] uporablja za terjatve delavcev, ki izhajajo iz pogodb o zaposlitvi ali delovnih razmerij, do delodajalcev, ki so plačilno nesposobni v smislu člena 2(1)“.
Article 2(2) of Directive 80/987 states that the directive is without prejudice to national law as regards the definition of the terms ‘employee’, ‘employer’, ‘pay’, ‘right conferring immediate entitlement’ and ‘right conferring prospective entitlement’.
V členu 2(2) te direktive je navedeno, da navedena direktiva ne vpliva na nacionalno zakonodajo glede opredelitve izrazov „delavec“, „delodajalec“, „plačilo“, „pravica, ki zagotavlja takoj�njo upravičenost [tj. pridobljena pravica]“, in „pravica, ki zagotavlja upravičenost v prihodnosti [tj. pričakovana pravica]“.
Article 3(1) of Directive 80/987, in its initial version, provided:
Člen 3(1) Direktive 80/987 je v prvotni različici določal:
‘Member States shall take the measures necessary to ensure that guarantee institutions guarantee, subject to Article 4, payment of employees’ outstanding claims resulting from contracts of employment or employment relationships and relating to pay for the period prior to a given date.’
„Države članice sprejmejo potrebne ukrepe za to, da jamstvene ustanove v skladu s členom 4 jamčijo izplačilo neporavnanih terjatev delavcev, ki temeljijo na pogodbah o zaposlitvi ali delovnih razmerjih in se nana�ajo na plačilo za obdobje pred določenim datumom.“
2008 — CASE C-246/06
2008 – ZADEVA C-246/06
Article 3(1) of Directive 80/987, in its initial version, has become the first paragraph of Article 3 in the version following the amendment by Directive 2002/74 and is now worded as follows:
Člen 3(1) Direktive 80/987, v prvotni različici, je v različici te, ki izhaja iz Direk -tive 2002/74, postal člen 3, prvi odstavek, in zdaj določa:
‘Member States shall take the measures necessary to ensure that guarantee institutions guarantee, subject to Article 4, payment of employees’ outstanding claims resulting from contracts of employment or employment relationships, including, where provided for by national law, severance pay on termination of employment relationships.’
„Države članice sprejmejo potrebne ukrepe, da zagotovijo, da jamstvene ustanove, ob upo�tevanju člena 4, jamčijo plačilo neporavnanih terjatev delavcev, ki izhajajo iz pogodb o zaposlitvi ali delovnih razmerij, ki vključujejo, kadar to zahteva nacionalna zakonodaja, odpravnino ob prenehanju delovnega razmerja.“
The first and second subparagraphs of Article 2(1) of Directive 2002/74 state:
Člen 2(1), prvi in drugi pododstavek, Direktive 2002/74 določa:
‘Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive before 8 October 2005.
„Države članice sprejmejo zakone in druge predpise, ki so potrebni za uskladitev s to direktivo, do 8. oktobra 2005.
They shall apply the provisions referred to in the first subparagraph to any state of insolvency of an employer occurring after the date of entry into force of those provisions.’
Predpise iz prvega pododstavka uporabijo za vsak primer plačilne nesposobnosti, ki je nastopil po dnevu začetka veljave teh predpisov.“
In accordance with Article 3 thereof, Directive 2002/74 entered into force on 8 October 2002.
V členu 3 Direktive 2002/74 je določeno, da je ta začela veljati 8. oktobra 2002.
Spanish legislation
Španska zakonodaja
Article 33(1) and (2) of Legislative Royal Decree 1/1995 of 24 March 1995 approving the amended text of the Workers’ Statute (Estatuto de los Trabajadores, BOE No 75 of 29 March 1995, p.
Člen 33(1) in (2) kraljeve zakonske uredbe 1/1995 z dne 24. marca 1995 o potrditvi spremenjenega besedila zakona o delovnih razmerjih (Estatuto de los Trabaja-dores, BOE �t. 75 z dne 29. marca 1995, str.
9654), in the version following from Law 60/1997 of 19 December 1997 (BOE No 304 of 20 December 1997, p.
9654, v nadaljevanju: zakon o delovnih razmerjih), v različici, ki izhaja iz zakona 60/1997 z dne 19. decembra 1997 (BOE �t. 304 z dne 20. decembra 1997, str.
37453) (‘the Workers’ Statute’) provides:
37453, v nadaljevanju: zakon o delovnih razmerjih), določa:
The Wages Guarantee Fund … shall pay to workers the remuneration owed to them in the event of insolvency, suspension of payments, bankruptcy or judicial administration of their employers.
Jamstveni sklad […] delavcem izplača zneske plač, ki jim pripadajo v primeru plačilne nesposobnosti, prekinitve plačil, stečaja ali prisilne poravnave gospodarskih subjektov.
For the purposes of the preceding subparagraph, remuneration shall include the amount which the conciliation settlement or the judicial decision recognises as such on the basis of the definition laid down in Article 26(1), as well as supplementary compensation in respect of “salarios de tramitación” [wages for the period between the dismissal and disposal of proceedings], awarded where appropriate by the competent court …
V okviru prej�njega odstavka se za plačo �teje znesek, priznan v sporazumu o poravnavi ali v sodni odločbi iz vseh naslovov, določenih v členu 26(1), in tudi dodatno nadomestilo iz naslova ‚salarios de tramitación‘ [plače med postopkom], o katerem glede na okoli�čine primera odloči pristojno sodi�če […].
The Wages Guarantee Fund, in the cases referred to in the previous paragraph, shall pay the compensation fixed by judgment or administrative decision in favour of workers on account of their dismissal or of the cancellation of their contracts in accordance with Articles 50, 51 and 52(c) of this Law, up to a maximum of one year’s pay, it being understood that the daily wage taken as the basis for that computation may not exceed twice the minimum interprofessional wage.
Jamstveni sklad v primeru iz prej�njega odstavka delavcem izplača od�kodnino, priznano s sodbo ali z upravno odločbo, zaradi odpovedi ali prenehanja pogodbe v skladu s členi 50, 51 in 52(c) tega zakona, v okviru najvi�jega letnega plačila, če dnevna plača, ki je podlaga za izračun, ne presega dvakratne minimalne plače za vse poklice.
Compensation for unfair dismissal, as provided for in Article 56(1) of the Workers’ Statute, is included in the types of compensation to be paid by Fogasa pursuant to Article 33(2) of the Workers’ Statute, under the following conditions:
V od�kodnino, ki jo mora v skladu s členom 33(2) zakona o delovnih razmerjih izplačati sklad Fogasa, spada pod temi pogoji tudi od�kodnina za protipravno odpoved delovnega razmerja, določena v členu 56(1) tega zakona:
(a) compensation equivalent to 45 days of remuneration per year of service, periods shorter than a year being calculated pro rata on a monthly basis up to 42 monthly payments;
Če je prenehanje delovnega razmerja razgla�eno za nezakonito, se lahko delodajalec v petih dneh od dneva objave sodbe odloči med vrnitvijo delavca na delo skupaj s plačilom ‚salarios de tramitación‘, kot so določeni v točki (b) tega odstavka, in plačilom teh zneskov, ki morajo biti določeni s sodbo: a) od�kodnine, enake 45 dnem plače za leto dela; obdobja, kraj�a od enega leta, se izračunajo v sorazmerju glede na mesece do vi�ine 42 mesečnih obrokov; b) zneska, ki je enak vsoti dolgovanih plač od dneva odpovedi do vročitve sodbe, ki odpoved razgla�a za nezakonito, ali dokler delavec ne najde zaposlitve, če je ta zaposlitev nastopila pred razglasitvijo sodbe in če delodajalec predloži dokaz glede zneskov, ki jih je izplačal, da se jih od�teje od ‚salarios de tramitación‘.
The employer shall continue to register the worker with the social security authorities during the period corresponding to the remuneration referred to in point (b) of the first subparagraph.’
Delodajalec mora za delavca v obdobju, ki ustreza plačam, obravnavanim v zgoraj navedeni točki (b), �e naprej plačevati prispevke za socialno varnost.“
Ms Velasco Navarro, the claimant in the main proceedings, was a member of the staff of Camisas Leica SL (‘Camisas Leica’) for the period from 28 May 1998 until 27 December 2001, when she was dismissed by that company.
Velasco Navarro in Camisas Leica sta 13. maja 2002 sklenili sodno poravnavo, v skladu s katero je ta družba, prvič, priznala protipravnost odpovedi pogodbe o zaposlitvi J.
On 13 May 2002, Ms Velasco Navarro and Camisas Leica reached a judicial conciliation settlement, under which Camisas Leica acknowledged that Ms Velasco Navarro had been unfairly dismissed and agreed to pay her compensation for dismissal and the ‘salarios de tramitación’, as provided for in Article 56 of the Workers’ Statute.
Velasco Navarro in se, drugič, tej zavezala izplačati od�kodnino za odpoved pogodbe o zaposlitvi in „salarios de tramitación“, določene v členu 56 zakona o delovnih razmerjih.
On the basis of a provisional insolvency order concerning Camisas Leica, made on 5 March 2003 by the same court at the company’s request, Ms Velasco Navarro sought payment from Fogasa of the sum, due by way of compensation for dismissal and ‘salarios de tramitación’, that her former employer had not paid her.
Na podlagi sodbe, s katero je bila ugotovljena plačilna nesposobnost družbe Camisas Leica, ki jo je 5. marca 2003 na predlog te družbe izdalo isto sodi�če, je J. Velasco Navarro zahtevala, naj ji Fogasa izplača znesek, ki ustreza navedeni od�kodnini, in „salarios de tramitación“, ki ji jih njen nekdanji delodajalec ni izplačal.
According to the explanation submitted by the national court in the grounds for the order for reference, by Article 33(2) of the Workers’ Statute, Spanish law provides for the payment of severance pay, but only where entitlement to such compensation is recognised by a judgment or administrative decision in favour of the workers on account of their dismissal or the termination of the contract.
V skladu s pojasnili, ki jih je podalo nacionalno sodi�če v obrazložitvi predložitvene odločbe, �pansko pravo v členu 33(2) zakona o delovnih razmerjih določa izplačilo od�kodnine zaradi prenehanja delovnega razmerja, vendar le, kadar je ta priznana delavcu s sodbo ali z upravno odločbo zaradi odpovedi oziroma prenehanja pogodbe.
The referring court regards that provision of national law as contrary to the Community principle of equal treatment as enshrined in the caselaw of the Court, and, in particular, in paragraph 30 of the order of 13 December 2005 in Case C-177/05 Guerrero Pecino [2005] ECR I-10887.
Predložitveno sodi�če meni, da je navedena nacionalna določba v nasprotju s skupnostnim načelom enakosti, kot ga določa sodna praksa Sodi�ča in zlasti točka 30 sklepa z dne 13. decembra 2005 v zadevi Guerrero Pecino (C-177/05, ZOdl., str. I-10887).
According to that caselaw, compensation of the same type, determined by a judicial conciliation procedure, must also be regarded as severance pay within the meaning of the first paragraph of Article 3 of Directive 80/987.
V skladu s to sodno prakso je treba od�kodnine enake vrste, ki so bile določene v postopku sodne poravnave, prav tako �teti za odpravnino v smislu člena 3, prvi odstavek, Direktive 80/987.
The referring court points out that Directive 2002/74 was already in force on 5 March 2003, the date on which it declared Camisas Leica insolvent.
Navedeno sodi�če poudarja, da je bila Direktiva 2002/74 na dan, ko je ugotovilo plačilno nesposobnost družbe Camisas Leica, in sicer 5. marca 2003, že v veljavi.
It considers that, even though the period allowed for transposition expired on 8 October 2005, the Spanish legislature took no steps to implement Directive 2002/74 because of its conviction that the Spanish domestic legislation, in force since 21 December 1997, fully complied with that directive.
Ugotavlja, da čeprav se je rok za prenos te direktive iztekel 8. oktobra 2005, je �panski zakonodajalec ni prenesel, saj je prepričan, da je notranja �panska zakonodaja, ki velja od 21. decembra 1997, popolnoma v skladu z navedeno direktivo.
The referring court concludes that it cannot therefore be maintained that the Kingdom of Spain had transposed Directive 2002/74 by 8 October 2005 because, in fact, the national legislation is not yet complete.
Nacionalno sodi�če na podlagi tega ugotavlja, da torej ni mogoče potrditi, da je Kraljevina Španija 8. oktobra 2005 že prenesla Direktivo 2002/74, ker nacionalna zakonodaja ni bila popolna.
The referring court also states that, at the hearing before it, Fogasa argued that Ms Velasco Navarro could not rely upon Directive 2002/74 — or on the interpretation of that directive which results from the order in Guerrero Pecino — since in any event the date of the provisional insolvency order against Camisas Leica, albeit later than the date of the entry into force of Directive 2002/74 (8 October 2002), falls before the date on which the Member States were to have taken the measures to transpose that directive (8 October 2005).
Predložitveno sodi�če prav tako trdi, da je sklad Fogasa na obravnavi pred tem sodi�čem trdil, da se J. Velasco Navarro ne more sklicevati na Direktivo 2002/74 niti na njeno razlago, ki izhaja iz zgoraj navedenega sklepa Guerrero Pecino, ker je bila sodba, s katero je bila ugotovljena začasna plačilna nesposobnost družbe Camisas Leica, čeprav je bila izdana po datumu začetka veljavnosti te direktive, in sicer 8. oktobra 2002, vsekakor izdana pred datumom, do katerega so morale države članice sprejeti ukrepe za njen prenos, in sicer 8. oktobra 2005.
It is in those circumstances that the Juzgado de lo Social Único de Algeciras decided to stay proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:
V teh okoli�činah je Juzgado de lo Social Único de Algeciras prekinilo odločanje in Sodi�ču v predhodno odločanje predložilo ti vpra�anji:
By its two questions, the referring court asks whether the first paragraph of Article 3 of Directive 80/987, not yet transposed into the national law of a Member State, has direct effect and, if so, from which date that provision can be relied upon directly against an institution such as Fogasa.
Predložitveno sodi�če z vpra�anjema spra�uje, ali ima člen 3, prvi odstavek, Direktive 80/987, ki �e ni prenesena v pravni red države članice, neposredni učinek, in če je odgovor pritrdilen, od katerega datuma se je mogoče na to določbo neposredno sklicevati zoper institucijo, kot je sklad Fogasa.
Since both those questions turn, in essence, on whether the provision is capable of having direct effect between the date of its entry into force and the deadline for its transposition, it is appropriate to consider them together.
Ker se s tema vpra�anjema v bistvu želi izvedeti, ali ima lahko navedena določba neposredni učinek med datumom njenega začetka veljavnosti in datumom izteka roka za njen prenos, ju je treba obravnavati skupaj.
The referring court refers the two questions on the basis of the order in Guerrero Pecino.
Predložitveno sodi�če zastavlja ti vpra�anji na podlagi zgoraj navedenega sklepa Guerrero Pecino.
Although, in that order, the Court interpreted Directive 80/987 at the request of the same national court as that which has referred questions to the Court in the present proceedings and with regard to the same issue of insolvency, it did so — as it pointed out at paragraph 23 of that order — exclusively on the assumption that Directive 2002/74 had already been transposed into national law at the relevant date, a matter which it was for the national court to verify.
Čeprav je v tem sklepu Sodi�če podalo razlago Direktive 80/987 na predlog istega predložitvenega sodi�ča, kot je to, ki se je obrnilo na Sodi�če v postopku v glavni stvari, in v zvezi z istim primerom plačilne nesposobnosti, pa jo je podalo, kot je to pojasnilo v točki 23 tega sklepa, le če je bila Direktiva 2002/74 na upo�tevni datum že prenesena v nacionalni pravni red, kar mora preveriti predložitveno sodi�če.
As regards the case before the referring court, the grounds of the order for reference indicate that, according to that court, Directive 2002/74 had not been transposed into national law by 8 October 2005, the deadline for its transposition (see, to that effect, Case C-6/07 Commission v Spain, not published in the ECR.
V zadevi v postopku v glavni stvari pa iz obrazložitve predložitvene odločbe izhaja, da, kot trdi predložitveno sodi�če, Direktiva 2002/74 na datum izteka roka za prenos te direktive, in sicer 8. oktobra 2005, �e ni bila prenesena v notranji pravni red (glej v tem smislu sodbo z dne 29. novembra 2007 v zadevi Komisija proti Španiji, C-6/07, neobjavljena v ZOdl.).
Direct effect of the first paragraph of Article 3 of Directive 80/987
Neposredni učinek člena 3, prvi odstavek, Direktive 80/987
Leaving aside the question of the conditions which must be fulfilled so that a provision of a directive, which has not yet been transposed or which has been transposed
Ne glede na presojo pogojev, ki morajo biti izpolnjeni, da se je mogoče pred nacionalnim sodi�čem sklicevati na določbo direktive, ki �e ni bila prenesena ali ki ni
VELASCO NAVARRO incorrectly, may be relied upon before the national courts (Case C-62/00 Marks & Spencer [2002] ECR I-6325, paragraph 25, and Case C-430/04 Feuerbestattungsverein Halle [2006] ECR I-4999, paragraphs 28 and 29), it is settled caselaw that a directive can have direct effect only after the expiry of the time-limit laid down for its transposition into national law (Case C-316/93 Vaneetveld [1994] ECR I-763, paragraph 16, and Case C-348/98 Mendes Ferreira and Delgado Correia Ferreira [2000] ECR I-6711, paragraph 33). 26
VELASCO NAVARRO bila prenesena pravilno (glej sodbi z dne 11. julija 2002 v zadevi Marks & Spencer, C-62/00, Recueil, str. I-6325, točka 25, in z dne 8. junija 2006 v zadevi Feuerbestattungsverein Halle, C-430/04, ZOdl., str. I-4999, točki 28 in 29), je v skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso, da ima lahko direktiva neposredni učinek �ele po izteku roka, ki je določen za njen prenos v pravni red držav članic (sodbi z dne 3. marca 1994 v zadevi Vaneetveld, C-316/93, Recueil, str. I-763, točka 16, ter z dne 14. septembra 2000 v zadevi Mendes Ferreira in Delgado Correia Ferreira, C-348/98, Recueil, str. I-6711, točka 33). 26
In the present case, the deadline for transposition is, pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 2(1) of Directive 2002/74, 8 October 2005.
V tem primeru je datum izteka roka za prenos v skladu s členom 2(1), prvi pododstavek, Direktive 2002/74 8. oktober 2005.
For the purposes of the case before the referring court, it is necessary to ascertain whether the possible direct effect of that directive can be relied upon, after that date, in relation to facts which occurred before that date.
Za zadevo v postopku v glavni stvari je treba preveriti, ali se je po tem datumu mogoče sklicevati na morebiten neposredni učinek navedene direktive v zvezi z dejstvi, do katerih je pri�lo pred njim.