natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
As the Court has recently indicated, the directive establishes ‘a list of national rules that a Member State must apply to undertakings established abroad which post workers on that Member State’s territory in the framework of the provision of transnational services’.
Kot je Sodi�če nedavno navedlo, omenjena direktiva določa „seznam nacionalnih predpisov, ki jih mora država članica uporabljati za podjetja s sedežem v drugi državi članici, ki napotijo delavce na njeno ozemlje v okviru čezmejnega opravljanja storitev“ 19.
19 In that sense, they are mandatory protective rules.
V tem smislu gre za obvezujoča za�čitna pravila.
This category of terms of employment has special features by comparison with the other matters mentioned in Article 3(1) of Directive 96/71, such as maximum work periods and minimum rest periods, health, safety and hygiene at work, and the minimum length of paid annual holidays.
Ta skupina pogojev za delo upo�teva posebne vidike v zvezi z drugimi materijami iz člena 3(1) Direktive 96/71, kot so maksimalni delovni čas in minimalni počitek, zdravje, varnost in higiena pri delu ter minimalni plačani letni dopust.
Community actions have been developed for the other terms of employment referred to, and in particular it has been possible to harmonise national legislation by means of directives setting minimum requirements.
Glede drugih navedenih pogojev za delo so bili sprejeti ukrepi Skupnosti in posebej je bilo mogoče uskladiti nacionalne zakonodaje z direktivami, ki določajo minimalne zahteve 20.
20 The situ- ation is different with regard to minimum rates of pay, for which no Community measure of this kind yet exists. 21
Drugače velja za področje minimalne urne postavke, za katero �e ne obstajajo tovrstni ukrepi Skupnosti 21.
The listing of these rules by the Community legislature strengthens legal certainty, in that the provider of services established in another Member State is now certain that he will be required to apply a minimum and clearly identifiable basic set of rules on terms and conditions of employment in force in the State where the services are provided.
Dejstvo, da je zakonodajalec Skupnosti določil te predpise, izbolj�uje pravno varnost s tem, da je ponudnik storitev s sedežem v drugi državi članici sedaj prepričan, da bo dolžan uporabljati minimalna in jasno opredeljiva osnovna pravila v zvezi s pogoji za delo in zaposlitev, ki veljajo v državi, v kateri se opravljajo storitve.
As a corollary, workers posted to a Member
Vzporedno bo delavec, napoten v eno državo članico, lahko v svojo korist uveljavljal uporabo teh predpisov, katerih obvezna narava neposredno izhaja iz Direktive 96/71.
20 — See in particular Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9).
20 – Glej zlasti Direktivo 2003/88/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 4. novembra 2003 o določenih vidikih organizacije delovnega časa (UL L 299, str. 9).
Under Article 15 of that directive, headed ‘More favourable provisions’, the directive ‘shall not affect Member States’ right to apply or introduce laws, regulations or administrative provisions more favourable to the protection of the safety and health of workers or to facilitate or permit the application of collective agreements or agreements concluded between the two sides of industry which are more favourable to the protection of the safety and health of workers’.
Njen člen 15 z naslovom „Ugodnej�e določbe “ določa, da ta direktiva „ne vpliva na pravico držav članic, da uporabljajo ali uvajajo zakone, podzakonske ali upravne akte, ki so ugodnej�i za varovanje zdravja in varnost delavcev, ali da olaj�ujejo ali dopu�čajo izvajanje kolektivnih pogodb ali sporazumov, sklenjenih med socialnimi partnerji, ki so ugodnej�i za varovanje zdravja in varnost delavcev“.
Although it cannot be said that Community law entirely neglects the question of remuneration, it must therefore be admitted that it does not yet cover the determination of the amount or level of remuneration. 22
Čeprav ni mogoče potrditi, da pravo Skupnosti v celoti zanemarja vpra�anje plačil, je kljub temu treba priznati, da to pravo �e ne ureja določitve zneska ali ravni plačil 22.
The last subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Directive 96/71 testifies to the special nature of minimum rates of pay where it lays down that ‘the concept of minimum rates of pay referred to in paragraph 1(c) is defined by the national law and/or practice of the Member State to whose territory the worker is posted’.
Člen 3(1), zadnji pododstavek, Direktive 96/71 priča o posebnosti področja minimalnih urnih postavk, ko določa, da „je koncept minimalnih urnih postavk iz odstavka 1 točke (c) opredeljen z nacionalno zakonodajo in/ali prakso države članice, na katere ozemlje je delavec napoten“.
In addition, I would remind the Court that the 17th recital in the preamble to that directive provides that ‘the mandatory rules for minimum protection in force in the host country must not prevent the application of terms and conditions of employment which are more favourable to workers’.
Dalje opozarjam, da sedemnajsta uvodna izjava te direktive določa, da „prisilni predpisi o minimalni za�čiti, ki veljajo v državi gostiteljici, ne smejo onemogočati uporabe pogojev za delo in zaposlitev, ki so za delavce ugodnej�i“.
The first subparagraph of Article 3(7) of the directive translates this intention of the Community legislature by stating that ‘[p]aragraphs 1 to 6 shall not prevent application of terms and conditions of employment which are more favourable to workers’.
Člen 3(7), prvi pododstavek, zadevne direktive to voljo zakonodajalca Skupnosti izraža s tem, da predvideva, da „[o]dstavki od 1 do 6 ne onemogočajo uporabe za delavce ugodnej�ih pogojev za delo in zaposlitev“.
In my view, there are two aspects to this last provision.
Po mojem mnenju zadnja določba vsebuje dva vidika.
First, it means that the mandatory nature of the protective rules in force in the State where the services are performed may be eclipsed by application of the rules in force in the State in which the provider is established if those rules provide for terms and conditions of employment that are more favourable to the posted workers.
Na eni strani pomeni, da se lahko obvezujoča narava za�čitnih predpisov, ki veljajo v državi, v kateri se izvajajo storitve, nadomesti z uporabo predpisov, ki veljajo v državi sedeža ponudnika storitev, če ti predpisi predvidevajo za napotene delavce ugodnej�e pogoje za delo in zaposlitev.
This other characteristic of the system established by the directive in question is expressed in the very concept of ‘a nucleus of mandatory rules for minimum protection’
Poleg tega je uporabo „trdnega jedra“ za�čitnih pravil iz člena 3(1) te direktive, po mojem mnenju, treba razumeti, kot da pomeni minimalno jamstvo za napotene delavce, ki jim je tako zagotovljena vsaj ugodnost teh obvezujočih nacionalnih predpisov.
The author nevertheless states that this issue is not immune to possible wage negotiations at European level.
Avtor vendarle pojasnjuje, da o tem področju lahko potekajo pogajanja o plačah na evropski ravni.
Moreover, he notes that, leaving aside the strict determination of the amount or level of wages, ‘the principle of wage equality between men and women may have a general impact on the mechanisms for remunerating workers’ and that ‘other Community regulations may have an effect in the wage field, for example with regard to the organisation of working time’.
Poleg tega je opozoril, da, ne glede na strogo določitev zneska ali ravni plačil, „lahko načelo enakega plačila za mo�ke in ženske splo�no učinkuje na mehanizme plačila delavcev“ in da „[l]ahko druge ureditve Skupnosti dodatno vplivajo na področje plačil, na primer s področja organizacije delovnega časa“.
Secondly, and it is this aspect that is relevant in the present case, Article 3(7) of Directive 96/71 also, in my view, permits
Na drugi strani, in ta vidik je v tej zadevi pomemben, člen 3(7) Direktive 96/71 po mojem mnenju tudi dovoljuje državam
If we compare the arrangements under German law for determining minimum rates of pay in the construction industry with the system established by Directive 96/71, as I have just described it, we can draw the following conclusions.
Če sedaj primerjamo sistem po nem�kem pravu za določitev minimalnih urnih postavk v gradbeni�tvu s sistemom, ki ga je vzpostavila Direktiva 96/71, kot sem ga pravkar opisal, lahko ugotovimo naslednje.
the Member State where the services are performed to improve, for the matters referred to in Article 3(1) of the directive, the level of social protection which it wishes to guarantee to workers employed in its territory and which it can therefore apply to workers posted there.
članicam, v katerih se storitve izvajajo, da na področjih iz člena 3(1) te direktive izbolj�ajo raven socialne varnosti, ki jo želijo zagotoviti delavcem, zaposlenim na njihovem ozemlju, in ki jo torej lahko uporabljajo za k sebi napotene delavce.
It must be pointed out, however, that the implementation of such enhanced national protection must be in accordance with what is permitted under Article 49 EC. 24
Vendar je treba izpostaviti, da je tako izbolj�ano nacionalno varstvo treba izvesti v skladu s tem, kar dopu�ča člen 49 ES 24.
I note first that under German law there is a system for declaring collective agreements to be universally applicable.
Najprej ugotavljam, da v nem�kem pravu obstaja sistem, ki dopu�ča razglasitev kolektivnih pogodb za splo�no uporabne.
The German arrangements for determining minimum rates of pay in the construction industry must therefore be assessed against the yardstick of Article 3(1) of Directive 96/71, and not in the light of the provisions of the second subparagraph of Article 3(8) of that directive, which caters for the absence of a system for declaring collective agreements to be of universal application.
Nem�ki sistem določitve minimalnih urnih postavk v gradbeni�tvu je torej treba preučiti glede na člen 3(1) Direktive 96/71 in ne glede na določbe člena 3(8), drugi pododstavek, te direktive, ki ureja primere, ko ne obstaja sistem razglasitve kolektivnih pogodb za splo�no uporabne.
According to the author, the terms and conditions of employment in the matters referred to in Directive 96/71 are ‘minimum domestic rules, with a basis in State or contractual provisions, which under the directive the Member States must ensure are observed as a minimum in the situation of the temporary posting of workers’ (p. 95).
Po mnenju avtorja so pogoji za delo in zaposlitev na področjih iz Direktive 96/71 „minimalna notranja pravila, ki temeljijo na zakonskih ali pogodbenih določbah, in morajo države članice morajo v skladu s to direktivo zagotoviti, da se upo�tevajo vsaj v primeru začasne napotitve delavcev“ (str. 95).
This idea is also expressed in the 34th recital in the preamble to Directive 2004/18, according to which Directive 96/71 ‘lays down the minimum conditions which must be observed by the host country in respect of … posted workers’.
Ta ideja je izražena tudi v �tiriintrideseti uvodni izjavi Direktive 2004/18, v skladu s katero Direktiva 96/71 „določa minimalne pogoje, ki jih država gostiteljica mora upo�tevati v zvezi z [napotenimi] delavci“.
24 — I share, in this regard, the analysis put forward by Advocate General Mengozzi in the Opinion he delivered on 23 May 2007 in Case C-341/05 Laval un Partneri (pending before the Court), in which he stated that ‘although Directive 96/71 accepts that the Member States may apply to a service provider of a Member State that posts workers temporarily to the territory of another Member State terms and conditions of employment that are more favourable for the workers than those referred to in particular in Article 3(1) of [that directive], the granting of that option must nevertheless respect the freedom to provide services guaranteed by Article 49 EC’ (point 151).
24 – V tej zvezi se strinjam z analizo, ki jo je predstavil generalni pravobranilec Mengozzi v sklepnih predlogih, ki jih je 23. maja 2007 predstavil v zadevi Laval un Partneri (C-341/05, ki trenutno poteka pred Sodi�čem), v katerih je navedel, da „čeprav Direktiva 96/71 priznava, da lahko države članice za ponudnike storitev iz ene države članice, ki začasno napotujejo delavce na ozemlje druge države članice, uporabijo ugodnej�e pogoje za delo in zaposlitev za delavce od tistih, ki so predvideni zlasti v členu 3(1) [te] direktive […], je treba tako možnost vendarle priznati ob spo�tovanju svobode opravljanja storitev, ki jo zagotavlja člen 49 ES“ (točka 151).
Moreover, in its interpretative communication on the Community law applicable to public procurement and the possibilities for integrating social considerations into such contracts, the Commission accepts that in both national and crossborder situations ‘provisions more favourable to workers may … also be applied (and must then also be complied with), provided that they are compatible with Community law’ (p.
Poleg tega opozarjam, da Komisija v Razlagalnem sporočilu o pravu Skupnosti, ki se uporablja za javna naročila, in o možnosti vključitve socialnih vidikov v ta naročila priznava, da se tako v nacionalnih kot v čezmejnih primerih „lahko uporabijo tudi za delavce ugodnej�e določbe (in jih je treba torej tudi spo�tovati), če so v skladu s pravom Skupnosti“ (str.
21, point 3.2).
21, točka 3.2).
In accordance with Article 3(1) of the directive, Paragraph 1(1) of the AEntG provides inter alika that the legal rules resulting from a collective agreement governing the construction industry which is declared to be universally applicable, which relate to minimum pay, shall also apply to an employment relationship linking an employer established outside Germany and his employee working within the territory
V skladu s členom 3(1) omenjene direktive člen 1(1) AEntG med drugim določa, da so pravne norme iz kolektivne pogodbe za gradbeno industrijo, ki so razgla�ene za splo�no uporabne in katerih predmet je minimalna plača, obvezne tudi za delovno razmerje med delodajalcem s sedežem v tujini in njegovim delavcem, ki opravlja
covered by that agreement. Hence, such an employer must, as a minimum, grant to his posted employee the working conditions established in that collective agreement.
Tak delodajalec mora tako svojemu delavcu zagotoviti vsaj pogoje za delo, ki so določeni v tej pogodbi.
To be precise, the arrangements under German law for determining minimum rates of pay in the construction industry are also based, as a complement to the TV Mindestlohn, on specific collective agreements, most of which have limited territorial scope and are not normally declared to be universally applicable, thus placing them outside the ‘nucleus’ of minimum rules of protection as defined in Article 3(1) of Directive 96/71.
Natančneje, sistem po nem�kem pravu za določitev minimalne urne postavke v gradbeni�tvu se kot dodatek k TV Mindestlohn opira na posebne kolektivne pogodbe, ki imajo večinoma omejeno krajevno področje uporabe in ki običajno niso razgla�ene za splo�no uporabne, kar jih torej uvr�ča zunaj „trdnega jedra“ minimalnih za�čitnih predpisov, kot so opredeljeni v členu 3(1) Direktive 96/71.
I then wish to remind the Court that the TV Mindestlohn applicable at the time of the facts in the main proceedings, which was declared to be of universal application and covers the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany, sets the level of the minimum wage in the construction industry for two categories according to the employee’s level of qualification, and at different levels for ‘old’ and ‘new’ Länder.
Dalje opozarjam, da TV Mindestlohn, ki se je uporabljal v času dejanskega stanja zadeve v glavni stvari in ki je bil razgla�en za splo�no uporabnega ter pokriva ozemlje Zvezne republike Nemčije, v gradbeni�tvu določa raven minimalne plače za dve kategoriji v skladu s stopnjo poklicne usposobljenosti delavca in glede na to, ali gre za „stare“ in „nove“ Länder.
Does that mean, as the Commission maintains, that undertakings posting workers in the framework of the transnational provision of services cannot be required to comply with such specific collective agreements that have not been declared to be of universal application within the meaning of the first subparagraph of Article 3(8) of the directive in question?
Ali to pomeni, kot zatrjuje Komisija, da od podjetij, ki napotujejo delavce v okviru čezmejnega opravljanja storitev, ni mogoče zahtevati, naj spo�tujejo te posebne kolektivne pogodbe, ki niso razgla�ene za splo�no uporabne v smislu člena 3(8), prvi pododstavek, te direktive?
This collective agreement, which has been declared to be universally applicable within the meaning of the first subparagraph of Article 3(8) of Directive 96/71, thus forms part of the ‘nucleus’ of protective rules as defined in Article 3(1) of that directive.
Ta kolektivna pogodba, ki je razgla�ena za splo�no uporabno v smislu člena 3(8), prvi pododstavek, Direktive 96/71, je tako del „trdnega jedra“ za�čitnih predpisov, kot so opredeljeni v členu 3(1) te direktive.
At the same time, it must be pointed out that the said collective agreement also indicates that the right to higher wages under other collective agreements or special agreements is not affected by the agreement’s provision laying down the total hourly pay for the two categories mentioned above.
Hkrati je treba poudariti, da navedena pogodba prav tako natančneje določa, da določba, ki predvideva celotno pogodbeno urno plačilo zgoraj omenjenih dveh kategorij, ne vpliva na pravico do vi�jih plač na podlagi drugih kolektivnih pogodb ali posebnih sporazumov.
As authorised by Article 3(7) of the direct- ive in question, the TV Mindestlohn therefore expressly reserves the possibility of
Kot je dovoljeno s členom 3(7) zadevne direktive, TV Mindestlohn torej izrecno pridržuje možnost uporabe za delavce ugodnej�ih pogojev za delo.
I consider that, since the wage levels set in these specific collective agreements are, in practice, well above the minimum rates of pay required on the territory of the
Menim namreč, da ker so ravni plač, določene v teh kolektivnih pogodbah, v praksi znatno vi�je od minimalnih urnih postavk, ki se zahtevajo na ozemlju Zvezne republike Nemčije na podlagi TV
Federal Republic of Germany under the TV Mindestlohn, such agreements constitute the implementation of enhanced national protection.
Mindestlohn, take pogodbe pomenijo uveljavitev izbolj�anega nacionalnega varstva.
As I have previously demonstrated, such enhanced national protection is authorised under Article 3(7) of Directive 96/71.
Kot sem prej že dokazal, je tako izbolj�ano nacionalno varstvo dovoljeno na podlagi člena 3(7) Direktive 96/71.
I therefore take the view that Directive 96/71 must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as the Landesvergabegesetz, which requires contractors and, indirectly, their subcontractors to pay workers posted in the framework of the performance of a public contract at least the remuneration prescribed by the collective agreement in force at the place where those services are performed, on pain of penalties that may go as far as the termination of the works contract, even where the collective agreement to which the legislation in question refers is not declared to be universally applicable within the meaning of the first subparagraph of Article 3(8) of that directive.
Zato sem mnenja, da je Direktivo 96/71 treba razlagati tako, da ne nasprotuje nacionalni zakonodaji, kot je deželni zakon, ki zahteva, naj izbrani ponudniki in, posredno, njihovi podizvajalci delavcem, ki so napoteni v okviru izvedbe javnega naročila, izplačajo najmanj plačo, določeno s kolektivno pogodbo, ki se uporablja v kraju, kjer se storitve izvajajo, v nasprotnem primeru lahko sankcije privedejo celo do razdrtja podjemne pogodbe, tudi v primeru, kadar kolektivna pogodba, na katero napotuje ta zakonodaja, ni razgla�ena za splo�no uporabno v smislu člena 3(8), prvi pododstavek, te direktive.
Hence, a national measure, such as the one at issue in the main proceedings, which makes such collective agreements mandatory for posted workers as well, is, in my view, consistent with this directive in that it implements the option open to the Member States under Article 3(7) of the directive in question.
Zato je, po mojem mnenju, nacionalni ukrep, kot je ukrep iz postopka v glavni stvari, ki take kolektivne pogodbe določa za obvezne tudi v primeru napotitve delavcev, v skladu s to direktivo, ker uveljavlja možnost, ki je državam članicam dana na podlagi člena 3(7) zadevne direktive.
We must now ascertain whether Article 49 EC must be interpreted as precluding national legislation of the kind involved in the dispute in the main proceedings.
Sedaj je treba preveriti, ali je člen 49 ES treba razlagati tako, da nasprotuje nacionalni zakonodaji kot je ta, ki se obravnava v postopku v glavni stvari.
Moreover, the fact that a collective agreement that has been declared to be of universal application, such as the TV Mindestlohn, itself generally refers to other collective agreements or special agreements granting the right to higher wages is, in my opinion, consistent with Directive 96/71.
Poleg tega je po mojem mnenju dejstvo, da sama kolektivna pogodba, razgla�ena za splo�no uporabno, kot je TV Mindestlohn, na splo�no napotuje na druge kolektivne pogodbe ali posebne sporazume, ki jamčijo pravico do vi�je plače, v skladu z Direkti - vo 96/71.
B — The interpretation of Article 49 EC
B – Razlaga člena 49 ES
It is settled caselaw that Article 49 EC requires not only the elimination of all discrimination against service providers established in another Member State on the ground of their nationality but also the
V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso člen 49 ES ne zahteva samo odprave vsakr�ne diskriminacije ponudnika storitev s sedežem v drugi državi članici zaradi njegovega državljanstva, ampak tudi odpravo vsakr�ne omejitve, čeprav se ta omejitev uporablja
The German arrangements for determining minimum rates of pay in the construction industry therefore appear to me to constitute a coherent system that is compatible with Directive 96/71.
Zdi se mi torej, da je nem�ki sistem določitve minimalnih urnih postavk v gradbeni�tvu skladen sistem, ki je v skladu z Direkti - vo 96/71.
25 agreement in force at the place where those services are performed, Paragraphs 3(1) and 4(1) of the Landesvergabegesetz may impose on service providers established in another Member State where minimum rates of pay are lower an additional economic burden that may prohibit, impede or render less attractive the provision of their services in the host State.
deželnega zakona ponudnikom storitev s sedežem v drugi državi članici, kjer so minimalne plače nižje, naložita dodatne ekonomske stro�ke, ki lahko prepovejo, ovirajo ali zmanj�ajo privlačnost izvajanja njihovih storitev v državi gostiteljici.
It has to be stated in this regard that the Court has already ruled that the application of the host Member State’s domestic legislation to service providers is liable to prohibit, impede or render less attractive the provision of services by persons or undertakings established in other Member States to the extent that it involves expenses and additional administrative and economic burdens. 26
V tej zvezi je treba ugotoviti, da je Sodi�če že presodilo, da lahko uporaba nacionalnih predpisov države članice gostiteljice za ponudnike storitve pomeni prepoved, oviranje ali drugačno zmanj�evanje privlačnosti opravljanja storitev oseb ali podjetij s sedežem v drugih državah članicah, če povzroča dodatne upravne in ekonomske stro�ke 26.
However, it must be noted that the provisions in question of the Landesvergabegesetz apply without distinction to national providers of services and to those of other Member States.
Dalje je treba navesti, da se zadevne določbe deželnega zakona uporabljajo brez razlikovanja za domače ponudnike in ponudnike iz drugih držav članic.