natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The United Kingdom Government and the Commission take the view that the rules at issue in the main proceedings are justified in so far as they are designed to protect young people.
Vlada Združenega kraljestva in Komisija menita, da je zakonodaja, ki je predmet obravnave v postopku v glavni stvari, utemeljena v delu, v katerem je njen cilj varstvo mladoletnikov.
That objective is linked in particular to public morality and public policy, which are grounds of justification recognised in Article 30 EC.
Ta cilj naj bi bil povezan zlasti z javno moralo in javnim redom, ki sta utemeljitvi, ki ju priznava člen 30 ES.
Furthermore, Directives 97/7 and 2000/31 expressly authorise the imposition of restrictions on grounds of public interest.
Poleg tega naj bi direktivi 97/7 in 2000/31 izrecno dovoljevali določanje omejitev zaradi splo�nega interesa.
Dynamic Medien, the German Government and Ireland concur with that position if it is established that those rules do not fall outside the prohibition laid down by Article 28 EC.
Družba Dynamic Medien, nem�ka vlada in Irska se pridružujejo temu stali�ču, če bi se ugotovilo, da se zadevna zakonodaja ne more izogniti prepovedi iz člena 28 ES.
The German Government submits that they pursue public-policy objectives and ensure that young people are able to develop their sense of personal responsibility and their sociability.
Nem�ka vlada navaja, da ta zakonodaja zasleduje cilje javnega reda in omogoča, da lahko mladina razvije družabnost in občutek za osebno odgovornost.
Furthermore, the protection of young people is an objective which is closely related to ensuring respect for human dignity.
Tudi sicer naj bi bilo varstvo mladoletnikov cilj, ki je tesno povezan z zagotavljanjem spo�tovanja človekovega dostojanstva.
Ireland also invokes the imperative requirement of consumer protection recognised by the judgment in Cassis de Dijon.
Irska se sklicuje tudi na nujno zahtevo po varstvu potro�nikov, ki je bila priznana v zgoraj navedeni sodbi Cassis de Dijon.
Avides Media takes the view that the rules at issue in the main proceedings are disproportionate in so far as they have the effect of systematically prohibiting the sale by mail order of image storage media not bearing the labelling which they require, regardless of whether or not the image storage media concerned were examined in another Member State for the purpose of protecting young people.
Družba Avides Media meni, da zakonodaja, ki je predmet obravnave v postopku v glavni stvari, ni sorazmerna, ker povzroča sistematično prepoved prodaje po po�ti nosilcev slike, ki nimajo oznake, ki jo določa ta zakonodaja, in to ne glede na to, ali so bili zadevni nosilci slike v drugi državi članici predmet preizkusa za varstvo mladoletnikov ali ne.
In addition, it is argued, German law fails to provide for a simplified procedure in cases where such an examination has in fact been made.
Nem�ko pravo naj tudi ne bi določalo poenostavljenega postopka za primere, v katerih je bil tak preizkus dejansko opravljen.
In that connection, it must be recalled that the protection of the rights of the child is recognised by various international instruments which the Member States have cooperated on or acceded to, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which was adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 19 December 1966 and entered into force on 23 March 1976, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which was adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 20 November 1989 and entered into force on 2 September 1990.
Glede tega je treba spomniti, da priznavajo varstvo otrokovih pravic različni mednarodni instrumenti, pri katerih so države članice sodelovale ali pa so k njim pristopile, kot sta Mednarodni pakt o državljanskih in političnih pravicah, ki ga je sprejela generalna skup�čina Združenih narodov 19. decembra 1966 in je začel veljati 23. marca 1976, ter Konvencija o otrokovih pravicah, ki jo je isti organ sprejel 20. novembra 1989 in je začela veljati 2. septembra 1990.
The Court has already had occasion to point out that those international instruments are among those concerning the protection of human rights of which it takes account in applying the general principles of Community law (see, inter alia, Case C-540/03 Parliament v Council [2006] ECR I-5769, paragraph 37).
Sodi�če je že opozorilo na to, da te mednarodne listine vključujejo tiste, ki zadevajo varstvo človekovih pravic, ki jih Sodi�če upo�teva pri uporabi splo�nih načel prava Skupnosti (glej zlasti zgoraj navedeno sodbo Parlament proti Svetu, točka 37).
In this context, it must be observed that, under Article 17 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the States Parties recognise the important function performed by the mass media and are required to ensure that the child has access to informa-
V teh okoli�činah je treba poudariti, da na podlagi člena 17 Konvencije o otrokovih pravicah, države pogodbenice priznavajo pomembno vlogo množičnih občil ter otroku zagotavljajo dostop do informacij in gradiv iz najrazličnej�ih domačih in
2008 — CASE C-244/06 tion and material from a diversity of national and international sources, especially those aimed at the promotion of his or her social, spiritual and moral well-being and physical and mental health.
2008 – ZADEVA C-244/06 mednarodnih virov, zlasti tistih, katerih cilj je krepitev otrokove družbene, duhovne in nravstvene blaginje ter telesnega in du�evnega zdravja.
Article 17(e) provides that those States are to encourage the development of appropriate guidelines for the protection of the child from information and material injurious to his or her well-being.
V tem členu je v točki e pojasnjeno, da zadevne države pogodbenice spodbujajo razvoj ustreznih smernic za zavarovanje otroka pred informacijami in gradivi, ki �kodujejo njegovi blaginji.
The protection of the child is also enshrined in instruments drawn up within the framework of the European Union, such as the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union, proclaimed on 7 December 2000 in Nice (OJ 2000 C 364, p.
Varstvo otrok je tudi predmet listin, pripravljenih v okviru Evropske unije, kot je Listina unije o temeljnih pravicah, razgla�ena 7. decembra 2000 v Nici (UL C 364, str.
1), Article 24(1) of which provides that children have the right to such protection and care as is necessary for their well-being (see, to that effect, Parliament v Council, paragraph 58).
1), katere člen 24(1) določa, da imajo otroci pravico do potrebnega varstva in skrbi za zagotovitev njihove dobrobiti (glej v tem smislu zgoraj navedeno sodbo Parlament proti Svetu, točka 58).
Furthermore, the Member States’ right to take the measures necessary for reasons relating to the protection of young persons is recognised by a number of Community-law instruments, such as Directive 2000/31.
Poleg tega pravico držav članic, da sprejmejo ukrepe, ki so potrebni za varstvo mladoletnikov, priznavajo nekateri instrumenti prava Skupnosti, kot je Direktiva 2000/31.
It is clear from the decision making the reference that the national rules at issue in the main proceedings are designed to protect children against information and materials injurious to their well-being.
Iz predložitvene odločbe izhaja, da je cilj nacionalne zakonodaje, ki je predmet postopka v glavni stvari, zavarovanje otroka pred informacijami in gradivi, ki �kodujejo njegovi blaginji.
In that connection, it is not indispensable that restrictive measures laid down by the authorities of a Member State to protect the rights of the child, referred to in paragraphs 39 to 42 of this judgment, correspond to a conception shared by all Member States as regards the level of protection and the detailed rules relating to it (see, by analogy, Omega, paragraph 37).
Glede tega je treba poudariti, da ni nujno, da bi omejevalni ukrepi, ki so jih sprejeli organi države članice za varstvo otrokovih pravic, navedeni v točkah od 39 do 42 te sodbe, ustrezali konceptu, ki bi bil glede ravni in načinov tega varstva enak v vseh državah članicah (glej po analogiji zgoraj navedeno sodbo Omega, točka 37).
As that conception may vary from one Member State to another on the basis of, inter alia, moral or cultural views, Member States must be recognised as having a definite margin of discretion.
Ker je ta koncept v različnih državah članicah lahko različen zlasti zaradi moralnega ali kulturnega vidika, je treba državam članicam priznati določeno diskrecijsko pravico.
While it is true that it is for the Member States, in the absence of Community harmonisation, to determine the level at which they intend to protect the interest concerned, the fact remains that that discretion must be exercised in conformity with the obligations arising under Community law.
Čeprav so države članice, kadar gre za znotraj Skupnosti neusklajeno področje, pristojne za presojo, na kateri ravni želijo zagotoviti varstvo zadevnega interesa, pa morajo pri izvajanju te diskrecijske pravice spo�tovati obveznosti, ki izhajajo iz prava Skupnosti.
Although the rules at issue in the main proceedings correspond to the level of child protection that the German legislature has sought to ensure on the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany, it is also necessary that the measures implemented by those rules be suitable for securing that objective and do not go beyond what is necessary in order to attain it.
Če zakonodaja, ki je predmet obravnave v postopku v glavni stvari, ustreza ravni varstva otrok, ki jo je nem�ki zakonodajalec želel zagotoviti na ozemlju Zvezne republike Nemčije, je potrebno tudi to, da so sredstva, ki jih določa ta zakonodaja, ustrezna za zagotavljanje uresničitve tega cilja in da ne presegajo tega, kar je potrebno za njegovo uresničitev.
There is no doubt that prohibiting the sale and transfer by mail order of image storage media which have not been examined and classified by the competent authority for the purpose of protecting young persons and which do not bear a label from that authority indicating the age from which they may be viewed constitutes a measure suitable for protecting children against information and materials injurious to their well-being.
Prepoved prodaje in prenosa po po�ti nosilcev slike, ki jih pristojni organ ni preizkusil in razvrstil za varstvo mladoletnikov in niso opremljeni z oznako tega organa, iz katere bi bila razvidna starost, od katere si je te nosilce slike dovoljeno ogledati, je nedvomno ukrep za zavarovanje otroka pred informacijami in gradivi, ki �kodujejo njegovi blaginji.
As far as concerns the substantive scope of the prohibition concerned, the Law on the protection of young persons does not preclude all forms of marketing of unchecked image storage media.
Glede vsebine obravnavane prepovedi je treba poudariti, da zakon o varstvu mladoletnikov ne nasprotuje vsem oblikam prodaje nosilcev slike, ki niso bili preizku�eni.
It is clear from the decision making the reference that it is permissible to import and sell such image storage media to adults by way of distribution channels involving personal contact between the supplier and the purchaser, which thus ensures that children do not have access to the image storage media concerned.
Iz predložitvene odločbe namreč izhaja, da je dovoljen uvoz in prodaja teh nosilcev slike odraslim po distribucijskih poteh, pri katerih je omogočen osebni stik med dobaviteljem in kupcem ter je poskrbljeno za to, da otroci nimajo dostopa do zadevnih nosilcev slike.
In the light of those factors, it appears that the rules at issue in the main proceedings do not go beyond what is necessary to attain the objective pursued by the Member State concerned.
Zdi se, da zakonodaja, ki je predmet obravnave v postopku v glavni stvari, glede teh dejavnikov ne presega tega, kar je potrebno za uresničitev cilja, ki si ga je zastavila zadevna država članica.
As regards the examination procedure established by the national legislature in order to protect children against information and materials injurious to their wellbeing, the mere fact that a Member State has opted for a system of protection which differs from that adopted by another Member State cannot affect the assessment of the proportionality of the national provisions enacted to that end.
Glede postopka za preizkus, ki ga je uvedel nacionalni zakonodajalec za zavarovanje otroka pred informacijami in gradivi, ki �kodujejo njegovi blaginji, je treba navesti, da samo to, da se je država članica odločila za varovalne načine, ki so drugačni od tistih, ki jih je sprejela druga država članica, ne more vplivati na presojo sorazmernosti nacionalnih določb, ki so bile sprejete na tem področju.
Those provisions must be assessed solely by reference to the objective pursued and the level of protection which the Member State in question intends to provide (see, by analogy, Case C-124/97 Lääräand Others [1999] ECR I-6067, paragraph 36, and Omega, paragraph 38).
Te določbe je treba presojati samo glede na zadevni cilj in raven varstva, ki ga želi zagotoviti zadevna država članica (glej po analogiji sodbo z dne 21. septembra 1999 v zadevi Läärä in drugi, C-124/97, Recueil, str. I-6067, točka 36, in zgoraj navedeno sodbo Omega, točka 38).
In the present case, it appears from the observations submitted by the German Government before the Court that the procedure for examining, classifying, and labelling image storage media, established by the rules at issue in the main proceedings, fulfils the conditions set out in the preceding paragraph. However, it is for the
V tem primeru kaže, da iz stali�č, ki jih je nem�ka vlada vložila pri Sodi�ču, izhaja, da postopek za preizkus, razvrstitev in označevanje nosilcev slike, ki ga določa zakonodaja, ki je predmet obravnave v postopku v glavni stvari, izpolnjuje pogoje, navedene
DYNAMIC MEDIEN national court, before which the main action has been brought and which must assume responsibility for the subsequent judicial decision, to ascertain whether that is the case.
DYNAMIC MEDIEN v prej�nji točki. Vendar pa mora predložitveno sodi�če, ki odloča o postopku v glavni stvari in je odgovorno za sodno odločbo, ki jo bo sprejelo, preveriti, ali je to res.
Having regard to all the foregoing considerations, the answer to the questions referred must be that Article 28 EC does not preclude national rules, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which prohibit the sale and transfer by mail order of image storage media which have not been examined and classified by the competent authority for the purposes of protecting young persons and which do not bear a label from that authority indicating the age from which they may be viewed, unless it appears that the procedure for examination, classification and labelling of image storage media established by those rules is not readily accessible or cannot be completed within a reasonable period, or that a decision of refusal is not open to challenge before the courts.
Glede na vse zgornje ugotovitve je treba na postavljena vpra�anja odgovoriti, da člen 28 ES ne nasprotuje taki nacionalni zakonodaji, kot je zakonodaja, ki je predmet obravnave v postopku v glavni stvari, ki prepoveduje prodajo in prenos po po�ti tistih nosilcev slike, ki jih pristojni organ ni preizkusil in razvrstil za varstvo mladoletnikov ter niso opremljeni z oznako tega organa, iz katere bi bila razvidna starost, od katere si je te nosilce slike dovoljeno ogledati, razen če se izkaže, da postopek za preizkus, razvrstitev in označevanje nosilcev slike, ki ga določa ta zakonodaja, ni lahko dostopen ali da ne omogoča, da se ga izvede v razumnih rokih, ali da zoper zavrnilno odločbo ni mogoče zahtevati sodnega varstva.
Article 28 EC does not preclude national rules, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which prohibit the sale and transfer by mail order of image storage media which have not been examined and classified by a higher regional authority or a national voluntary selfregulation body for the purposes of protecting young persons and which do not bear a label from that authority or that body indicating the age from which they may be viewed, unless it appears that the procedure for examination, classification and labelling of image storage media established by those rules is not readily accessible or cannot be completed within a reasonable period, or that a decision of refusal is not open to challenge before the courts.
Člen 28 ES ne nasprotuje taki nacionalni zakonodaji, kot je zakonodaja, ki je predmet obravnave v postopku v glavni stvari, ki prepoveduje prodajo in prenos po pošti tistih nosilcev slike, ki jih vrhovni deželni organ ali nacionalna organizacija prostovoljnega samourejanja ni preizkusil in razvrstil za varstvo mladoletnikov ter niso opremljeni z oznako tega organa ali organizacije, iz katere bi bila razvidna starost, od katere si je te nosilce slike dovoljeno ogledati, razen če se izkaže, da postopek za preizkus, razvrstitev in označevanje nosilcev slike, ki ga določa ta zakonodaja, ni lahko dostopen ali da ne omogoča, da se ga izvede v razumnih rokih, ali da zoper zavrnilno odločbo ni mogoče zahtevati sodnega varstva.
Case C-449/06
Zadeva C-449/06
(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail de Bruxelles)
(Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, ki ga je vložilo Tribunal du travail de Bruxelles)
(Officials — Remuneration — Staff Regulations — Family allowances — Calculation of the amount of national family allowances — Determination of the ranking of the children — Child giving rise to entitlement to family allowances under the Staff Regulations)
„Uradniki – Osebni prejemki – Kadrovski predpisi – Družinski dodatki – Določitev zneska nacionalnih družinskih dodatkov – Določitev reda otrok – Otroci, zaradi katerih nastane pravica do družinskih dodatkov po Kadrovskih predpisih“
Opinion of Advocate General Mengozzi delivered on 8 November 2007 . .
Mengozzija, predstavljeni 8. novembra 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I - 555
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber), 14 February 2008 . . . . . .
Sodba Sodi�ča (četrti senat) z dne 14. februarja 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . I - 572
Officials — Staff Regulations — Legal nature — Regulation — Direct applicability — Obligations of the Member States
Uradniki – Kadrovski predpisi – Pravna narava – Uredba – Neposredna uporabnost – Obveznosti držav članic
SUMMARY — CASE C-449/06 family allowances under the Staff Regulations must be treated in the same way as a child giving rise to entitlement to family allowances under national law or an international social security convention in the Member State concerned.
POVZETEK – ZADEVA C-449/06 na podlagi Kadrovskih predpisov, enačiti z otrokom, zaradi katerega nastane pravica do teh dodatkov na podlagi notranjega prava ali mednarodne konvencije o socialni varnosti, ki velja v zadevni državi članici.
Having regard to the direct applicability of that regulation in the legal systems of the Member States, a child giving rise to entitlement to
Ob upo�tevanju neposredne uporabljivosti navedene uredbe v pravnem redu držav članic je treba otroka, zaradi katerega nastane pravica do družinskih dodatkov
II — Legislative background
II – Pravni okvir
A — Community law
A – Skupnostna ureditev
By a decision of 17 October 2006, which was received by the Court on 6 November 2006, the Tribunal du travail de Bruxelles (Labour Court, Brussels), Belgium, referred a question to the Court for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68 of the Council of 29 February 1968 laying down the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities and instituting special measures temporarily applicable to officials of the Commission. 2
Z odločbo z dne 17. oktobra 2006, ki je prispela na Sodi�če 6. novembra 2006 je Tribunal du travail de Bruxelles (Belgija) Sodi�ču predložilo predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe v zvezi z razlago Uredbe Sveta (EGS, Euratom, ESPJ) z dne 29. februarja 1968, �t. 259, o določitvi Kadrovskih predpisov za uradnike in Pogojev za zaposlitev drugih uslužbencev Evropskih skupnosti ter uvedbi posebnih ukrepov, začasno veljavnih za uradnike Komisije 2.
Regulation No 259/68 is ‘binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States’, pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 11 thereof.
V skladu s členom 11 (drugi odstavek) je Uredba �t. 259/68 „v celoti zavezujoča in se neposredno uporablja v vseh državah članicah“.
That question was raised in a dispute between Ms Gysen and a Belgian social security institution for selfemployed workers regarding the calculation of the amount of allowances for dependent children which, under national legislation, that institution
To vpra�anje se je postavilo v okviru spora med S. Gysen in zavodom za socialno varstvo belgijskega prava za samozaposlene v zvezi z določitvijo zneska dodatka za vzdrževane otroke, ki ga mora navedeni zavod izplačati
Article 67(1) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities (‘the Staff Regulations’) — as defined in Article 2 of Regulation No 259/68 and subsequently
Člen 67(1) Kadrovskih predpisov za uradnike Evropskih skupnosti (v nadaljevanju: Kadrovski predpisi), opredeljenih s členom 2 Uredbe �t. 259/68 in ki izhajajo iz poznej�ih sprememb te uredbe, v korist
selfemployed workers 3 (‘the Royal Decree of 8 April 1976’), the amount of the dependent child allowance depends on the position (the ‘ranking’) of each child receiving the allowance in the succession of the worker’s children receiving allowances.
B – Nacionalna zakonodaja navedenih uradnikov določa tri vrste družinskih dodatkov: gospodinjski dodatek, otro�ki dodatek in dodatek za �olanje.
Articles 1, 2 and 3 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations lay down, in particular, the conditions governing the award of each of these allowances and the relevant amount.
Členi 1, 2 in 3 Priloge VII h Kadrovskim predpisom za uradnike določajo zlasti pogoje za dodelitev posameznega dodatka ter njihovega zneska.
Article 67(2) states that ‘[o]fficials in receipt of family allowances specified in this Article shall declare allowances of like nature paid from other sources’, which ‘shall be deducted from those paid under Articles 1, 2 and 3 of Annex VII’.
Na podlagi ureditve, vzpostavljene z belgijskim kraljevim odlokom 8. aprila 1976, ki določa ureditev družinskih dajatev v korist samozaposlenih 3(v nadaljevanju: kraljevi odlok z dne 8. aprila 1976), je znesek dodatka za vzdrževane otroke odvisen od položaja (v nadaljevanju: red), ki ga ima posamezen otrok, prejemnik tega dodatka, v vrsti otrok zainteresiranega delavca, prejemnikov dodatka.
However, the first subparagraph of Article 16(1) of the Royal Decree of 8 April 1976, as amended with retroactive effect from 1 July 2001 by Article 4 of the Royal Decree of 7 September 2003, 4 provides that:
Vendar je v členu 16(1), prvi pododstavek, kraljevega odloka z dne 8. aprila 1976, kot je bil spremenjen, z retroaktivno veljavnostjo od 1. julija 2001, s členom 4 kraljevega odloka z dne 7. septembra 2003 4, določeno:
Under Articles 20(2) and 21 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the Communities ( ‘the CEOS’) — as defined in Article 3 of Regulation No 259/68 and subsequently amended — Article 67 of the Staff Regulations and Articles 1, 2 and 3 of Annex VII thereto apply by analogy to temporary staff.
Člen 67(2) določa, da „[u]radniki, ki prejemajo družinske dodatke iz tega člena, prijavijo podobne dodatke, ki jih prejemajo iz drugih virov“, ki se „od�tejejo od dodatkov, ki jih prejemajo po členih 1, 2 in 3 Priloge VII“.
‘For the purposes of Articles 17, 19, 20 and 20a, the ranking is determined by the chronological order of the births of the children receiving [allowances] under this Decree, the consolidated statutes on family allow-
„Zaradi uporabe členov 17, 19, 20 in 20(a) je red določen ob upo�tevanju kronologije rojstev upravičencev [do dodatka] v skladu s tem odlokom, z usklajenimi zakoni, povezanimi z družinskim dodatkom za samozaposlene, s kraljevim odlokom z dne 26. marca
The decree has been amended many times over the intervening years.
Ta odlok je bil pozneje večkrat spremenjen.