Grounds
|
|
1. This reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of age and of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16).
|
1. Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe se nanaša na razlago načela prepovedi diskriminacije na podlagi starosti in Direktive Sveta 2000/78/ES z dne 27. novembra 2000 o splošnih okvirih enakega obravnavanja pri zaposlovanju in delu (UL L 303, str. 6).
|
|
2. The reference was made in the course of proceedings between Ms Kücükdeveci and her former employer Swedex GmbH & Co. KG (‘Swedex’) concerning the calculation of the notice period applicable to her dismissal.
|
2. Ta predlog je bil v vložen v sporu med S. Kücükdeveci in njenim nekdanjim delodajalcem, družbo Swedex GmbH & Co. KG (v nadaljevanju: Swedex), glede izračuna odpovednega roka, ki ga je treba uporabiti pri odpovedi njenega delovnega razmerja.
|
|
Legal context
|
Pravni okvir
|
|
European Union legislation
|
Ureditev Unije
|
|
3. Directive 2000/78 was adopted on the basis of Article 13 EC. Recitals 1, 4 and 25 in the preamble to the directive read as follows:
|
3. Direktiva 2000/78 je bila sprejeta na podlagi člena 13 ES. V uvodnih izjavah 1, 4 in 25 te direktive je navedeno:
|
|
‘(1) In accordance with Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union, the European Union is founded on the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law, principles which are common to all Member States and it respects fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms [signed at Rome on 4 November 1950] and as they result from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States, as general principles of Community law.
|
„(1) Evropska unija v skladu s členom 6 Pogodbe o Evropski uniji temelji na načelih svobode, demokracije, spoštovanja človekovih pravic in temeljnih svoboščin ter vladavine prava, načelih, ki so skupna vsem državam članicam, ter spoštuje temeljne pravice, ki jih jamči Evropska konvencija o varstvu človekovih pravic in temeljnih svoboščin [sprejeta 4. novembra 1950 v Rimu] in kakršne izhajajo iz ustavnih tradicij, skupnih državam članicam, kot splošnih načel prava Skupnosti.
|
|
…
|
[…]
|
|
(4) The right of all persons to equality before the law and protection against discrimination constitutes a universal right recognised by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, United Nations Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, to which all Member States are signatories. Convention No 111 of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) prohibits discrimination in the field of employment and occupation.
|
(4) Pravica vseh oseb do enakosti pred zakonom in do zaščite pred diskriminacijo je univerzalna pravica, ki jo priznavajo Splošna deklaracija o človekovih pravicah, Konvencija ZN o odpravi vseh oblik diskriminacije žensk, sporazuma ZN o državljanskih in političnih pravicah ter o ekonomskih, socialnih in kulturnih pravicah in Evropska konvencija o varstvu človekovih pravic in temeljnih svoboščin, katerih podpisnice so vse države članice. Konvencija št. 111 Mednarodne organizacije dela (MOD) prepoveduje diskriminacijo na področju zaposlovanja in dela.
|
|
…
|
[…]
|
|
(25) The prohibition of age discrimination is an essential part of meeting the aims set out in the Employment Guidelines and encouraging diversity in the workforce. However, differences in treatment in connection with age may be justified under certain circumstances and therefore require specific provisions which may vary in accordance with the situation in Member States. It is therefore essential to distinguish between differences in treatment which are justified, in particular by legitimate employment policy, labour market and vocational training objectives, and discrimination which must be prohibited.’
|
(25) Prepoved diskriminacije zaradi starosti je bistven del izpolnjevanja ciljev, opredeljenih v smernicah o zaposlovanju, in spodbujanja raznovrstnosti delovne sile. Vendar je v nekaterih okoliščinah različno obravnavanje v zvezi s starostjo lahko upravičeno in so s tem v zvezi potrebni posebni predpisi, ki so glede na položaj v državah članicah lahko med seboj različni. Bistveno je torej razlikovanje med upravičeno različnim obravnavanjem, zlasti tistim na podlagi legitimnih ciljev zaposlovalne politike, trga delovne sile in poklicnega usposabljanja, in diskriminacijo, ki mora biti prepovedana.“
|
|
4. According to Article 1 of Directive 2000/78, its purpose is to lay down a general framework for combating discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation as regards employment and occupation, with a view to putting into effect in the Member States the principle of equal treatment.
|
4. Namen Direktive 2000/78 je v skladu z njenim členom 1 opredelitev splošnega okvira boja proti diskriminaciji zaradi vere ali prepričanja, hendikepiranosti, starosti ali spolne usmerjenosti pri zaposlovanju in delu, zato da bi se v državah članicah uresničevalo načelo enakega obravnavanja.
|
|
5. Article 2 of the directive states:
|
5. Člen 2 te direktive določa:
|
|
‘1. For the purposes of this Directive, the “principle of equal treatment” shall mean that there shall be no direct or indirect discrimination whatsoever on any of the grounds referred to in Article 1.
|
„1. V tej direktivi ‚načelo enakega obravnavanja‘ pomeni, da ne obstaja nikakršna neposredna ali posredna diskriminacija zaradi katerega od razlogov iz člena 1.
|
|
2. For the purposes of paragraph 1:
|
2. V smislu odstavka 1:
|
|
(a) direct discrimination shall be taken to occur where one person is treated less favourably than another is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation, on any of the grounds referred to in Article 1;
|
(a) se šteje, da gre za neposredno diskriminacijo, kadar je, je bila ali bi bila oseba obravnavana manj ugodno kakor neka druga v primerljivi situaciji zaradi katerega od razlogov iz člena 1;
|
|
…’
|
[…]“
|
|
6. Article 3(1) of the directive provides:
|
6. V členu 3(1) navedene direktive je pojasnjeno:
|
|
‘Within the limits of the areas of competence conferred on the Community, this Directive shall apply to all persons, as regards both the public and private sectors, including public bodies, in relation to:
|
„1. V mejah pristojnosti, ki so prenesene na Skupnost, se ta direktiva uporablja za vse osebe, bodisi v javnem bodisi v zasebnem sektorju, vključno z javnimi telesi, kar zadeva:
|
|
…
|
[…]
|
|
(c) employment and working conditions, including dismissals and pay;
|
(c) zaposlitev in delovne pogoje, vključno z odpustitvijo in plačilom;
|
|
…’
|
[…]“
|
|
7. Article 6(1) of the directive provides:
|
7. Člen 6(1) iste direktive določa:
|
|
‘Notwithstanding Article 2(2), Member States may provide that differences of treatment on grounds of age shall not constitute discrimination, if, within the context of national law, they are objectively and reasonably justified by a legitimate aim, including legitimate employment policy, labour market and vocational training objectives, and if the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary.
|
„Ne glede na člen 2(2) lahko države članice predvidijo, da različno obravnavanje zaradi starosti ne predstavlja diskriminacije, če ga v kontekstu nacionalnega prava objektivno in razumno utemeljujejo z legitimnim ciljem, vključno z legitimnimi cilji zaposlovalne politike, delovnega trga in poklicnega usposabljanja, in če so načini uresničevanja tega cilja primerni in nujni.
|
|
Such differences of treatment may include, among others:
|
Tako različno obravnavanje je lahko med drugim:
|
|
(a) the setting of special conditions on access to employment and vocational training, employment and occupation, including dismissal and remuneration conditions, for young people, older workers and persons with caring responsibilities in order to promote their vocational integration or ensure their protection;
|
(a) določitev posebnih pogojev glede dostopnosti zaposlitve in poklicnega usposabljanja, zaposlitve in dela, vključno s pogoji glede odpustitve in plačila, za mlade osebe, starejše delavce in osebe, ki so dolžne skrbeti za druge, zato da se spodbuja njihovo poklicno vključenost ali jim zagotavlja varstvo;
|
|
(b) the fixing of minimum conditions of age, professional experience or seniority in service for access to employment or to certain advantages linked to employment;
|
(b) z določitvijo minimalnih pogojev glede starosti, delovnih izkušenj ali delovne dobe glede dostopa do zaposlitve ali kakšnih ugodnosti, povezanih z zaposlenostjo;
|
|
(c) the fixing of a maximum age for recruitment which is based on the training requirements of the post in question or the need for a reasonable period of employment before retirement.’
|
(c) z določitvijo najvišje starosti za zaposlitev, ki temelji na zahtevah glede usposobljenosti za zadevno delovno mesto, ali na potrebi po primerni dobi zaposlenosti pred upokojitvijo.“
|
|
8. In accordance with the first paragraph of Article 18 of the directive, it was to be transposed into the legal systems of the Member States by 2 December 2003 at the latest. The second paragraph of Article 18 provided, however, that:
|
8. V skladu s členom 18, prvi odstavek, Direktive 2000/78/ES bi morale države članice to direktivo v svoje pravne rede prenesti do 2. decembra 2003. Vendar pa drugi odstavek tega člena določa:
|
|
‘In order to take account of particular conditions, Member States may, if necessary, have an additional period of three years from 2 December 2003, that is to say a total of six years, to implement the provisions of this Directive on age and disability discrimination. In that event they shall inform the Commission forthwith …’
|
„Da se upoštevajo posebne okoliščine, si države članice po 2. decembru 2003 po potrebi lahko vzamejo še dodatno obdobje treh let, torej v celoti 6 let, da izvedejo določbe te direktive v zvezi z diskriminacijo zaradi starosti ali hendikepiranosti. V tem primeru o tem takoj obvestijo Komisijo […]“
|
|
9. The Federal Republic of Germany made use of that option, so that the provisions of the directive relating to discrimination on grounds of age and disability were to be transposed in that Member State by 2 December 2006 at the latest.
|
9. Zvezna republika Nemčija je izkoristila to možnost, tako da bi moral biti prenos določb navedene direktive glede diskriminacije zaradi starosti in hendikepiranosti v tej državi članici opravljen najpozneje do 2. decembra 2006.
|
|
National legislation
|
Nacionalna ureditev
|
|
The General Law on equal treatment
|
Splošni zakon o enakem obravnavanju
|
|
10. Paragraphs 1, 2 and 10 of the General Law on equal treatment (Allgemeines Gleichbehandlungsgesetz) of 14 August 2006 (BGBl. 2006 I, p. 1897), which transposed Directive 2000/78, provide:
|
10. Členi 1, 2 in 10 splošnega zakona o enakem obravnavanju (Allgemeines Gleichbehandlungsgesetz) z dne 14. avgusta 2006 (BGBl. 2006 I., str. 1897), s katerim je bila prenesena Direktiva 2000/78, določajo:
|
|
‘Paragraph 1 – Object of the Law
|
„Člen 1 – Namen zakona
|
|
The object of this law is to prevent or eliminate discrimination on grounds of race, ethnic origin, sex, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation.
|
Namen tega zakona je preprečiti ali odpraviti vsak slabši položaj na podlagi rase ali narodnosti, spola, vere ali prepričanja, invalidnosti, starosti ali spolne usmerjenosti.
|
|
Paragraph 2 – Scope
|
Člen 2 – Področje uporabe
|
|
…
|
[…]
|
|
(4) For dismissals, the provisions on general and specific protection against dismissal apply exclusively.
|
(4) Odpoved delovnega razmerja je urejena izključno z določbami o splošnem in posebnem varstvu pred odpovedjo delovnega razmerja.
|
|
…
|
[…]
|
|
Paragraph 10 – Permissible different treatment on grounds of age
|
Člen 10 – Dovoljenost različnega obravnavanja na podlagi starosti
|
|
Paragraph 8 notwithstanding, different treatment on grounds of age is also permissible if it is objectively and reasonably justified by a legitimate aim. The means of achieving that aim must be appropriate and necessary. Such differences of treatment may include in particular the following:
|
Ne glede na člen 8 je različno obravnavanje na podlagi starosti dovoljeno, kadar je objektivno, razumno in utemeljeno z legitimnim ciljem. Načini uresničevanja tega cilja morajo biti primerni in nujni. Različno obravnavanje je lahko med drugim:
|
|
…
|
(1) določitev posebnih pogojev glede dostopnosti zaposlitve in poklicnega usposabljanja, zaposlitve in dela, vključno s pogoji glede plačila in odpovedi delovnega razmerja, za mlade osebe, starejše delavce in osebe, ki so dolžne skrbeti za druge, zato da se spodbuja njihovo poklicno vključevanje ali se jim zagotavlja varstvo;
|
|
1. the setting of special conditions on access to employment and vocational training, employment and occupation, including conditions of remuneration and termination of employment relationships, for young people, older workers and persons with caring responsibilities in order to promote their vocational integration or ensure their protection,
|
[…]“
|
|
…’
|
Ureditev odpovednega roka pri odpovedi delovnega razmerja
|
|
Legislation on the notice period for dismissal
|
11. Člen 622 nemškega civilnega zakonika (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch, v nadaljevanju: BGB) določa:
|
|
11. Paragraph 622 of the German Civil Code (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch, ‘the BGB’) provides:
|
„(1) Delovno razmerje delavca ali zaposlenega se lahko odpove s štiritedenskim odpovednim rokom, pri čemer odpoved nastopi 15. v mesecu ali ob koncu meseca.
|
|
‘(1) Notice may be given to terminate the employment relationship of an employee with a notice period of four weeks to the 15th or to the end of a calendar month.
|
(2) Če pogodbo o zaposlitvi odpove delodajalec, so odpovedni roki naslednji:
|
|
(2) For termination by the employer, the notice period, if the employment relationship in the business or undertaking
|
– en mesec z učinkom ob koncu meseca, če je delovno razmerje v ustanovi ali podjetju trajalo dve leti;
|
|
1. has lasted for two years, is one month to the end of a calendar month,
|
– dva meseca z učinkom ob koncu meseca, če je delovno razmerje trajalo pet let;
|
|
2. has lasted five years, is two months to the end of a calendar month,
|
– trije meseci z učinkom ob koncu meseca, če je delovno razmerje trajalo osem let;
|
|
3. has lasted eight years, is three months to the end of a calendar month,
|
– štirje meseci z učinkom ob koncu meseca, če je delovno razmerje trajalo deset let;
|
|
4. has lasted 10 years, is four months to the end of a calendar month,
|
– pet mesecev z učinkom ob koncu meseca, če je delovno razmerje trajalo dvanajst let;
|
|
5. has lasted 12 years, is five months to the end of a calendar month,
|
– šest mesecev z učinkom ob koncu meseca, če je delovno razmerje trajalo petnajst let;
|
|
6. has lasted 15 years, is six months to the end of a calendar month,
|
– sedem mesecev z učinkom ob koncu meseca, če je delovno razmerje trajalo dvajset let;
|
|
7. has lasted 20 years, is seven months to the end of a calendar month.
|
Delovna doba, ki jo je imel delavec pred dopolnjenim 25. letom starosti, se ne upošteva pri izračunu trajanja zaposlitve.“
|
|
In calculating the length of employment, periods prior to the completion of the employee’s 25th year of age are not taken into account.’
|
Spor o glavni stvari in vprašanji za predhodno odločanje
|
|
The main proceedings and the order for reference
|
12. S. Kücükdeveci je bila rojena 12. februarja 1978. Od 4. junija 1996, tj. od svojega 18. leta, je bila zaposlena v družbi Swedex.
|
|
12. Ms Kücükdeveci was born on 12 February 1978. She was employed from 4 June 1996, in other words from the age of 18, by Swedex.
|
13. Družba Swedex je tej delavki delovno razmerje odpovedala z dopisom z dne 19. decembra 2006, odpoved pa je ob upoštevanju zakonskega odpovednega roka nastopila 31. januarja 2007. Delodajalec je odpovedni rok izračunal, kot da bi imela delavka tri leta delovne dobe, čeprav je bila pri njem zaposlena deset let.
|
|
13. Swedex dismissed her by letter of 19 December 2006 with effect, taking account of the statutory notice period, from 31 January 2007. The employer calculated the notice period as if the employee had three years’ length of service, although she had been in its employment for 10 years.
|
14. S. Kücükdeveci je izpodbijala odpoved delovnega razmerja pred Arbeitsgericht Mönchengladbach (Nemčija). Pred tem sodiščem je zatrjevala, da bi moral njen odpovedni rok trajati štiri mesece od 31. decembra 2006, torej do 30. aprila 2007, in sicer na podlagi člena 622(2), prvi pododstavek, četrta alinea, BGB. Ta rok naj bi ustrezal delovni dobi deset let. V sporu v glavni stvari si torej nasprotujeta posameznika, in sicer S. Kücükdeveci na eni strani ter družba Swedex na drugi.
|
|
14. Ms Kücükdeveci contested her dismissal before the Arbeitsgericht Mönchengladbach (Labour Court, Mönchengladbach). She argued before that court that her period of notice should have been four months from 31 December 2006, that is, to 30 April 2007, pursuant to point 4 of the second sentence of Paragraph 622(2) of the BGB. That period corresponded to 10 years’ service. The dispute in the main proceedings is thus between two individuals, Ms Kücükdeveci on the one hand and Swedex on the other.
|
15. Po mnenju S. Kücükdeveci pomeni člen 622(2), drugi pododstavek, BGB – ker določa, da se delovna doba, ki jo je delavec imel pred 25. letom, ne upošteva pri izračunu odpovednega roka – diskriminacijo na podlagi starosti, ki je v nasprotju s pravom Unije, in je treba njegovo uporabo zavrniti.
|
|
15. According to Ms Kücükdeveci, in so far as it provides that periods of employment completed before the age of 25 are not to be taken into account in calculating the notice period, the second sentence of Paragraph 622(2) of the BGB is a measure which discriminates on grounds of age, contrary to European Union law, and must be disapplied.
|
16. Landesarbeitsgericht Düsseldorf je pri odločanju na pritožbeni stopnji ugotovilo, da je rok za prenos Direktive 2000/78/ES na dan odpovedi že potekel. To sodišče je menilo tudi, da člen 622 BGB vsebuje različno obravnavanje, ki je neposredno povezano s starostjo in za katero ni prepričano, da je protiustavno, je pa vprašljiva njegova skladnost s pravom Unije. V zvezi s tem se sprašuje, ali je treba morebitni obstoj neposredne diskriminacije na podlagi starosti presojati ob upoštevanju primarnega prava Unije – zdi se, da na to napotuje sodba z dne 22. novembra 2005 v zadevi Mangold (C‑144/04, ZOdl., str. I‑9981) – ali ob upoštevanju Direktive 2000/78. Ob poudarjanju, da je nacionalna določba jasna in je po potrebi ni mogoče razlagati tako, da bi bila v skladu z navedeno direktivo, se sprašuje tudi, ali mora zato, da lahko opusti uporabo te določbe v sporu med posameznikoma, za zagotovitev varstva pravno utemeljenih pričakovanj strank predložiti predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe Sodišču, da to potrdi neskladnost navedene določbe s pravom Unije.
|
|
16. The Landesarbeitsgericht Düsseldorf (Higher Labour Court, Düsseldorf), hearing the case on appeal, found that the period for transposing Directive 2000/78 had expired by the date of the dismissal. That court also considered that Paragraph 622 of the BGB contains a difference of treatment directly linked to age, and, while it is not convinced that it is unconstitutional, it regards its compatibility with European Union law as doubtful. It is not sure in this respect whether the possible existence of direct discrimination on grounds of age must be assessed by reference to primary European Union law, as the judgment in Case C‑144/04 Mangold [2005] ECR I‑9981 appears to suggest, or by reference to Directive 2000/78. Noting that the national provision at issue is clear and could not be interpreted, if that were necessary, in a manner compatible with the directive, the court is also uncertain whether, to be able to disapply that provision in a dispute between private individuals, it must first, in order to ensure the protection of the legitimate expectations of persons subject to the law, make a reference to the Court for a preliminary ruling so that the Court can confirm that the provision is incompatible with European Union law.
|
17. V teh okoliščinah je Landesarbeitsgericht Düsseldorf prekinilo odločanje in Sodišču v predhodno odločanje predložilo ti vprašanji:
|
|
17. In those circumstances, the Landesarbeitsgericht Düsseldorf decided to stay the proceedings and refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling:
|
„1. (a) Ali nacionalna zakonodaja, ki določa, da se odpovedni roki, ki jih mora delodajalec spoštovati, postopoma podaljšujejo glede na trajanje zaposlitve, pri čemer se ne upošteva delovna doba, ki jo je delavec imel pred dopolnjenim 25. letom, krši prepoved diskriminacije na podlagi starosti, ki jo določa pravo Skupnosti, zlasti primarno pravo Skupnosti oziroma Direktiva 2000/78 […]?
|
|
‘(1) (a) Does a national provision under which the periods of notice to be observed by employers are extended incrementally as the length of employment increases, but the employee’s periods of employment b efore the age of 25 are disregarded, infringe the Community law prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age, in particular primary Community law or Directive 2000/78 …?
|
(b) Ali se za razlog, ki upravičuje dejstvo, da je delodajalec pri odpovedi pogodbe o zaposlitvi mladih delavcev dolžan spoštovati zgolj osnovni odpovedni rok, lahko šteje to, da se upošteva njegov gospodarski interes za fleksibilno upravljanje zaposlenih – ta interes bi bil namreč z daljšimi odpovednimi roki ogrožen – in to, da se mladim delavcem odrekajo stabilnost zaposlitve in s tem povezane ugodnosti (kar starejšim delavcem daljši odpovedni roki omogočajo) na primer zato, ker se glede na njihovo starost in/ali njihove manjše socialne, družinske in zasebne obveznosti od njih upravičeno pričakujejo večja prilagodljivost ter poklicna in osebna mobilnost?
|
|
(b) Can the fact that employers are required to observe only a basic period of notice when terminating the employment of younger employees be justified on the grounds that employers are recognised as having an operational interest in flexibility as regards staffing – an interest which would be adversely affected by longer periods of notice – and that younger employees are not recognised as having the protection available to older employees (by means of longer notice periods) with respect to their employment status or arrangements, for example because, having regard to their age and/or their lesser social, family and private obligations, they are assumed to have greater occupational and personal flexibility and mobility?
|
2. Če je odgovor na točko (a) prvega vprašanja pritrdilen in na točko (b) nikalen:
|
|
(2) If Question 1(a) is answered in the affirmative and Question 1(b) is answered in the negative:
|
Ali je sodišče države članice, ki odloča o sporu med posamezniki, dolžno zavrniti uporabo zakonodaje, ki je v nasprotju s pravom Skupnosti, ali pa mora sodišče dejstvo, da uporabniki prava zaupajo v uporabo veljavnih nacionalnih zakonov, upoštevati tako, da se uporaba zavrne šele po odločitvi Sodišča glede zadevnega predpisa oziroma glede vsebinsko podobnega predpisa?“
|
|
In legal proceedings between private individuals, must a court of a Member State disapply a statutory provision which is explicitly contrary to Community law, or is the legitimate expectation of persons subject to the law – that national laws which are in force will be applied – to be taken into account so that a provision becomes inapplicable only after the Court of Justice has ruled on the disputed provision or a substantially similar provision?’
|
Vprašanji za predhodno odločanje
|
|
The questions referred for a preliminary ruling
|
Prvo vprašanje
|
|
Question 1
|
18. Predložitveno sodišče s prvim vprašanjem v bistvu sprašuje, ali nacionalna ureditev, kakršna je ta v postopku v glavni stvari, ki določa, da se delovna doba delavca pred 25. letom ne upošteva pri izračunu odpovednega roka ob odpovedi delovnega razmerja, pomeni različno obravnavanje na podlagi starosti, ki je prepovedano s pravom Unije, zlasti s primarnim pravom oziroma z Direktivo 2000/78. Posebej se sprašuje, ali je mogoče tako ureditev utemeljiti z dejstvom, da je treba pri odpovedi delovnega razmerja mladih delavcev upoštevati zgolj osnovni odpovedni rok, zato da bi se na eni strani delodajalcem omogočilo fleksibilno upravljanje zaposlenih, kar ob daljših odpovednih rokih ne bi bilo mogoče, in ker je na drugi strani razumno od mladih delavcev pričakovati večjo poklicno in osebno mobilnost kot od starejših delavcev.
|
|
18. By its first question, the referring court asks essentially whether national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which periods of employment completed by the employee before reaching the age of 25 are not taken into account in calculating the notice period for dismissal, constitutes a difference of treatment on grounds of age prohibited by European Union law, in particular primary law or Directive 2000/78. It is unsure, in particular, whether such legislation is justified on the ground that only a basic notice period is to be observed in the case of dismissal of younger workers, first, in order to enable employers to manage their personnel flexibly, which would not be possible with longer notice periods, and, second, because it is reasonable to require greater personal and occupational mobility from younger workers than from older ones.
|
19. Za odgovor na navedeno vprašanje je treba, kot predlaga predložitveno sodišče, najprej ugotoviti, ali je treba to vprašanje obravnavati ob upoštevanju primarnega prava Unije ali ob upoštevanju Direktive 2000/78.
|
|
19. To answer that question, it must first be ascertained, as the referring court suggests, whether the question should be examined by reference to primary European Union law or to Directive 2000/78.
|
20. V zvezi s tem je treba opozoriti, prvič, da je Svet Evropske unije na podlagi člena 13 ES sprejel Direktivo 2000/78, s katero se po mnenju Sodišča ne uzakonja načelo enakega obravnavanja pri zaposlovanju in delu – to izvira iz mednarodnih dogovorov in iz ustavnih tradicij, skupnih državam članicam – temveč je njen namen na tem področju zgolj opredeliti splošni okvir boja proti diskriminaciji na različnih podlagah, med katerimi je tudi starost (glej zgoraj navedeno sodbo Mangold, točka 74).
|
|
20. In the first place, that the Council of the European Union adopted Directive 2000/78 on the basis of Article 13 EC, and the Court has held that that directive does not itself lay down the principle of equal treatment in the field of employment and occupation, which derives from various international instruments and from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States, but has the sole purpose of laying down, in that field, a general framework for combating discrimination on various grounds including age (see Mangold , paragraph 74).
|
21. Sodišče je v zvezi s tem priznalo obstoj načela prepovedi diskriminacije na podlagi starosti, ki ga je treba obravnavati kot splošno načelo prava Unije (glej v tem smislu zgoraj navedeno sodbo Mangold, točka 75). Direktiva 2000/78 to načelo pojasnjuje (glej po analogiji sodbo z dne 8. aprila 1976 v zadevi Defrenne, 43/75, Recueil, str. 455, točka 54).
|
|
21. In that context, the Court has acknowledged the existence of a principle of non-discrimination on grounds of age which must be regarded as a general principle of European Union law (see, to that effect, Mangold , paragraph 75). Directive 2000/78 gives specific expression to that principle (see, by analogy, Case 43/75 Defrenne [1976] ECR 455, paragraph 54).
|
22. Poudariti je treba tudi, da člen 6(1) PEU določa, da ima Listina o temeljnih pravicah Evropske unije enako pravno veljavnost kot Pogodbi. V skladu s členom 21(1) te listine je prepovedana „vsakršna diskriminacija na podlagi […] starosti.“
|
|
22. It should also be noted that Article 6(1) TEU provides that the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union is to have the same legal value as the Treaties. Under Article 21(1) of the charter, ‘[a]ny discrimination based on … age … shall be prohibited’.
|
23. Da bi se načelo prepovedi diskriminacije na podlagi starosti uporabilo v primeru, kakršen je v zadevi v glavni stvari, mora ta tudi spadati na področje uporabe prava Unije.
|
|
23. For the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of age to apply in a case such as that at issue in the main proceedings, that case must fall within the scope of European Union law.
|
24. V zvezi s tem in drugače od primera, v katerem je bila izdana sodba z dne 23. septembra 2008 v zadevi Bartsch (C-427/06, ZOdl., str. I-7245), se je v obravnavani zadevi domnevno diskriminatorno ravnanje, storjeno na podlagi zadevne nacionalne ureditve, zgodilo po izteku roka, določenega zadevni državi članici za prenos Direktive 2000/78, ki se je za Zvezno republiko Nemčijo iztekel 2. decembra 2006.
|
|
24. In contrast to the situation concerned in Case C‑427/06 Bartsch [2008] ECR I‑7245, the allegedly discriminatory conduct adopted in the present case on the basis of the national legislation at issue occurred after the expiry of the period prescribed for the Member State concerned for the transposition of Directive 2000/78, which, for the Federal Republic of Germany, ended on 2 December 2006.
|
25. Navedena direktiva je s tem datumom povzročila prehod nacionalne ureditve v postopku v glavni stvari, ki obravnava področje, urejeno s to direktivo – v obravnavanem primeru so to pogoji za odpoved delovnega razmerja – na področje uporabe prava Unije.
|
|
25. On that date, that directive had the effect of bringing within the scope of European Union law the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings, which concerns a matter governed by that directive, in this case the conditions of dismissal.
|
26. Nacionalna določba, kot je člen 622(2), drugi pododstavek, BGB, namreč, da se delovna doba delavca pred 25. letom ne upošteva pri izračunu odpovednega roka ob odpovedi delovnega razmerja, vpliva na pogoje za odpoved delovnega razmerja zaposlenih. Zato je treba šteti, da taka ureditev določa pravila v zvezi s pogoji za odpoved delovnega razmerja.
|
|
26. A national provision such as the second sentence of Paragraph 622(2) of the BGB, in that it provides that, in calculating the notice period, periods of employment completed before the employee reaches the age of 25 are not taken into account, affects the conditions of dismissal of employees. Such a provision must therefore be regarded as laying down rules on the conditions of dismissal.
|
27. Iz teh ugotovitev je razvidno, da je treba odgovor na vprašanje, ali pravo Unije nasprotuje nacionalni ureditvi, kakršna je ta v postopku v glavni stvari, iskati ob upoštevanju splošnega načela prava Unije o prepovedi kakršne koli diskriminacije na podlagi starosti, ki ga konkretizira Direktiva 2000/78.
|
|
27. It follows that it is the general principle of European Union law prohibiting all discrimination on grounds of age, as given expression in Directive 2000/78, which must be the basis of the examination of whether European Union law precludes national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings.
|
28. Drugič, glede vprašanja, ali ureditev iz postopka v glavni stvari vsebuje različno obravnavanje na podlagi starosti, je treba spomniti, da se „načelo enakega obravnavanja“ v skladu s členom 2(1) Direktive 2000/78 glede na njen namen razume kot neobstoj vsake neposredne in posredne diskriminacije iz katerega od razlogov iz člena 1 te direktive. V odstavku 2(a) člena 2 je pojasnjeno, da se za potrebe uporabe odstavka 1 šteje, da gre za neposredno diskriminacijo, kadar je obravnavanje osebe manj ugodno kakor obravnavanje druge osebe v primerljivem položaju iz katerega od razlogov iz člena 1 te direktive (glej sodbi z dne 16. oktobra 2007 v zadevi Palacios de la Villa, C‑411/05, ZOdl., str. I‑8531, točka 50, in z dne 5. marca 2009 v zadevi Age Concern England, C‑388/07, ZOdl., str. I-1569, točka 33).
|
|
28. In the second place, as regards the question whether the legislation at issue in the main proceedings contains a difference of treatment on grounds of age, it should be recalled that under Article 2(1) of Directive 2000/78, for the purposes of that directive, the ‘principle of equal treatment’ means that there is to be no direct or indirect discrimination whatsoever on any of the grounds referred to in Article 1 of the directive. Article 2(2)(a) of the directive states that, for the purposes of Article 2(1), direct discrimination is to be taken to occur where one person is treated less favourably than another person in a comparable situation, on any of the grounds referred to in Article 1 (see Case C‑411/05 Palacios de la Villa [2007] ECR I‑8531, paragraph 50, and Case C‑388/07 Age Concern England [2009] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 33).
|
29. V obravnavanem primeru člen 622(2), drugi pododstavek, BGB določa manj ugodno obravnavanje za zaposlene, ki so se pri delodajalcu zaposlili pred 25. letom. Ta nacionalna ureditev torej uvaja razlikovanje med osebami z enako delovno dobo na podlagi starosti, pri kateri so začele delati v podjetju.
|
|
29. In the present case, the second sentence of Paragraph 622(2) of the BGB affords less favourable treatment to employees who entered the employer’s service before the age of 25. That national provision thus introduces a difference of treatment between persons with the same length of service, depending on the age at which they joined the undertaking.
|
30. Tako ima od dveh zaposlenih z 20 leti delovne dobe tisti, ki je začel v podjetju delati pri 18 letih, pravico do petmesečnega odpovednega roka, medtem ko je ta rok sedem mesecev za tistega, ki je začel v podjetju delati pri 25 letih. Poleg tega, kot poudarja generalni pravobranilec v točki 36 sklepnih predlogov, nacionalna ureditev v postopku v glavni stvari na splošno postavlja mlade delavce v slabši položaj v primerjavi s starejšimi, saj so lahko prvi – kot je razvidno iz položaja tožeče stranke v glavni stvari – kljub več letom delovne dobe v podjetju izključeni iz postopnega podaljševanja odpovednih rokov za odpoved delovnega razmerja glede na trajanje zaposlitve v podjetju, do česar pa so starejši delavci s primerljivo delovno dobo upravičeni.
|
|
30. Thus in the case of two employees each with 20 years’ seniority in service, the one who joined the undertaking at the age of 18 will be entitled to a notice period of five months, whereas the period will be seven months for the one who joined at the age of 25. Moreover, as the Advocate General observes in point 36 of his Opinion, the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings disadvantages younger workers generally compared to older ones, in that the former – as the situation of Ms Kücükdeveci shows – may, despite several years’ seniority in service in the undertaking, be excluded from benefiting from the progressive extension of notice periods in the case of dismissal according to the length of the employment relationship, from which older workers of comparable seniority will, by contrast, be able to benefit.
|
31. Iz tega je razvidno, da zadevna nacionalna ureditev vsebuje različno obravnavanje, ki se opira na merilo starosti.
|
|
31. It follows that the national legislation at issue contains a difference of treatment on grounds of age.
|
32. Tretjič, ugotoviti je treba, ali to različno obravnavanje lahko povzroči diskriminacijo, prepovedano z načelom prepovedi diskriminacije na podlagi starosti, ki ga konkretizira navedena direktiva.
|
|
32. In the third place, it must be examined whether that difference of treatment is liable to constitute discrimination prohibited by the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of age given expression by Directive 2000/78.
|
33. Člen 6(1), prvi pododstavek, Direktive 2000/78 v zvezi s tem določa, da različno obravnavanje zaradi starosti ne pomeni diskriminacije, če je v okviru nacionalnega prava objektivno in razumno utemeljeno z legitimnim ciljem – zlasti z legitimnimi cilji zaposlovalne politike, delovnega trga in poklicnega usposabljanja – in če so načini uresničevanja tega cilja primerni in nujni.
|
|
33. The first subparagraph of Article 6(1) of Directive 2000/78 states that a difference of treatment on grounds of age does not constitute discrimination if, within the context of national law, it is objectively and reasonably justified by a legitimate aim, including legitimate employment policy, labour market and vocational training objectives, and if the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary.
|
34. Tako iz informacij, ki jih je podalo predložitveno sodišče, kot iz pojasnil nemške vlade na obravnavi je razvidno, da člen 622 BGB izvira iz zakona iz leta 1926. Določitev praga 25 let v tem zakonu naj bi bila plod kompromisa med tedanjo vlado, ki je želela enotno podaljšati odpovedni rok za delavce, starejše od 40 let, na tri mesece, zagovorniki postopnega podaljšanja tega roka za vse delavce ter zagovorniki postopnega podaljšanja odpovednega roka brez upoštevanja delovne dobe, saj je bil namen tega pravila, da se delodajalce delno razbremeni podaljšanih odpovednih rokov za delavce, mlajše od 25 let.
|
|
34. According to the information provided by the referring court and the statements made at the hearing by the German Government, Paragraph 622 of the BGB originates in a law of 1926. That that law set the threshold at 25 was the outcome of a compromise between, first, the government of the time, which wanted a uniform extension by three months of the notice period for the dismissal of workers aged over 40, second, the supporters of a progressive extension of that period for all workers, and, third, the supporters of a progressive extension of the notice period without taking the period of employment into account, the purpose of the rule being to give employers partial relief from lengthy periods of notice for workers aged under 25.
|
35. Po mnenju predložitvenega sodišča člen 622(2), drugi pododstavek, BGB odraža presojo zakonodajalca, v skladu s katero se mladi delavci na splošno lažje in hitreje odzovejo na izgubo zaposlitve ter je mogoče od njih zahtevati večjo prilagodljivost. Skratka, krajši odpovedni rok za mlade delavce naj bi olajšal njihovo zaposlovanje in povečeval fleksibilnost upravljanja zaposlenih.
|
|
35. The referring court states that the second sentence of Paragraph 622(2) of the BGB reflects the legislature’s assessment that young workers generally react more easily and more rapidly to the loss of their jobs and greater flexibility can be demanded of them. A shorter notice period for younger workers also facilitates their recruitment by increasing the flexibility of personnel management.
|
36. Cilji, kakršne navajata nemška vlada in predložitveno sodišče, očitno spadajo na področje zaposlovalne politike in trga dela v smislu člena 6(1) Direktive 2000/78.
|
|
36. Objectives of the kind mentioned by the German Government and the referring court clearly belong to employment and labour market policy within the meaning of Article 6(1) of Directive 2000/78.
|
37. V skladu s pogoji navedene določbe je treba preveriti še, ali so ukrepi, sprejeti za uresničevanje takega legitimnega cilja, „primerni in nujni“.
|
|
37. It remains to be ascertained, in accordance with the wording of that provision, whether the means of achieving such a legitimate aim are ‘appropriate and necessary’.
|
38. V zvezi s tem je treba spomniti, da imajo države članice široko diskrecijsko pravico pri izbiri ukrepov, s katerimi lahko uresničijo svoje cilje na področju socialne politike in politike zaposlovanja (glej zgoraj navedeni sodbi Mangold, točka 63, in Palacios de la Villa, točka 68).
|
|
38. The Member States enjoy a broad discretion in the choice of the measures capable of achieving their objectives in the field of social and employment policy (see Mangold , paragraph 63, and Palacios de la Villa , paragraph 68).
|
39. Predložitveno sodišče navaja, da je bil namen obravnavanega ukrepa delodajalcu omogočiti večjo fleksibilnost pri upravljanju zaposlenih z zmanjšanjem bremena navedenega delodajalca glede odpuščanja mladih delavcev, od katerih je razumno pričakovati večjo osebno in poklicno mobilnost.
|
|
39. The referring court indicates that the aim of the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings is to afford employers greater flexibility in personnel management by alleviating the burden on them in respect of the dismissal of young workers, from whom it is reasonable to expect a greater degree of personal or occupational mobility.
|
40. Vendar ta ureditev ni primerna za uresničitev tega cilja, saj se uporablja za vse zaposlene, ki so se v podjetju zaposlili pred 25. letom, ne glede na njihovo starost ob odpovedi delovnega razmerja.
|
|
40. However, the legislation is not appropriate for achieving that aim, since it applies to all employees who joined the undertaking before the age of 25, whatever their age at the time of dismissal.
|
41. Glede cilja zagotoviti boljše varstvo delavcev glede na trajanje zaposlitve v podjetju, ki mu je zakonodajalec sledil pri sprejemanju nacionalne ureditve v glavni stvari in na katerega opozarja nemška vlada, je očitno, da v skladu s to ureditvijo podaljšanje odpovednega roka na podlagi delovne dobe zaposlenega nastopi pozneje za vse zaposlene, ki so se v podjetju zaposlili pred starostjo 25 let, tudi če bi zadevna oseba ob odpovedi imela v podjetju dolgo delovno dobo. Torej ni mogoče šteti, da je navedena ureditev primerna za uresničevanje zatrjevanega cilja.
|
|
41. As regards the aim pursued by the legislature at the time of adoption of the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings, adduced by the German Government, of strengthening the protection of workers according to their length of service in the undertaking, it is clear that, under that legislation, the extension of the notice period for dismissal according to the employee’s seniority in service is delayed for all employees who joined the undertaking before the age of 25, even if the person concerned has a long length of service in the undertaking at the time of dismissal. The legislation cannot therefore be regarded as appropriate for achieving that aim.
|
42. Dodati je treba, da kot opozarja predložitvena odločba, obravnavana ureditev mlade zaposlene zadeva neenako, saj prizadene mlade, ki se zaposlijo zgodaj, bodisi brez poklicne izobrazbe bodisi po krajšem poklicnem izobraževanju, in ne tistih, ki začnejo delati pozneje, po daljšem izobraževanju.
|
|
42. It should be added that, as the referring court points out, the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings affects young employees unequally, in that it affects young people who enter active life early after little or no vocational training, but not those who start work later after a long period of training.
|
43. Iz vseh zgornjih ugotovitev je razvidno, da je treba na prvo vprašanje odgovoriti, da je treba pravo Unije, zlasti načelo prepovedi diskriminacije na podlagi starosti, konkretizirano z Direktivo 2000/78, razlagati tako, da nasprotuje nacionalni ureditvi, kakršna je ta v postopku v glavni stvari, ki določa, da se delovna doba delavca pred 25. letom ne upošteva pri izračunu odpovednega roka ob odpovedi delovnega razmerja.
|
|
43. It follows from all the above considerations that the answer to Question 1 is that European Union law, more particularly the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of age as given expression by Directive 2000/78, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that periods of employment completed by an employee before reaching the age of 25 are not taken into account in calculating the notice period for dismissal.
|
Drugo vprašanje
|
|
Question 2
|
44. Predložitveno sodišče z drugim vprašanjem sprašuje, ali mora pri odločanju v sporu med posameznikoma zato, da ne bi uporabilo nacionalne ureditve, za katero meni, da je v nasprotju s pravom Unije, za zagotovitev zaščite načela pravne varnosti strank zadevo na podlagi člena 267 PDEU najprej predložiti Sodišču, da to potrdi neskladnost te ureditve s pravom Unije.
|
|
44. By its second question, the referring court asks whether, where it is hearing proceedings between individuals, in order to disapply a national provision which it considers to be contrary to European Union law, it must first, to ensure protection of the legitimate expectations of persons subject to the law, make a reference to the Court under Article 267 TFEU, so that the Court can confirm that the legislation is incompatible with European Union law.
|
45. Prvič, Sodišče je glede vloge nacionalnega sodišča pri odločanju v sporu med posamezniki, v katerem je razvidno, da je zadevna nacionalna ureditev v nasprotju s pravom Unije, razsodilo, da morajo pravno varstvo, ki za zadevne osebe izhaja iz določb prava Unije, in njihov polni učinek zagotoviti nacionalna sodišča (glej v tem smislu sodbi z dne 5. oktobra 2004 v združenih zadevah Pfeiffer in drugi, od C‑397/01 do C‑403/01, ZOdl., str. I-8835, točka 111, in z dne 15. aprila 2008 v zadevi Impact, C‑268/06, ZOdl., str. I-2483, točka 42).
|
|
45. As regards, first, the role of the national court when called on to give judgment in proceedings between individuals in which it is apparent that the national legislation at issue is contrary to European Union law, the Court has held that it is for the national courts to provide the legal protection which individuals derive from the rules of European Union law and to ensure that those rules are fully effective (see, to that effect, Joined Cases C‑397/01 to C‑403/01 Pfeiffer and Others [2004] ECR I‑8835, paragraph 111, and Case C‑268/06 Impact [2008] ECR I‑2483, paragraph 42).
|
46. V zvezi s tem je glede sporov med posamezniki ustaljena sodna praksa Sodišča, da direktiva sama za posameznika ne more ustvarjati obveznosti in da se torej nanjo kot tako proti njemu ni mogoče sklicevati (glej zlasti sodbi z dne 26. februarja 1986 v zadevi Marshall, 152/84, Recueil, str. 723, točka 48, in z dne 14. julija 1994 v zadevi Faccini Dori, C‑91/92, Recueil, str. I-3325, točka 20, ter zgoraj navedeno sodbo Pfeiffer in drugi, točka 108).
|
|
46. In this respect, where proceedings between individuals are concerned, the Court has consistently held that a directive cannot of itself impose obligations on an individual and cannot therefore be relied on as such against an individual (see, inter alia, Case 152/84 Marshall [1986] ECR 723, paragraph 48; Case C‑91/92 Faccini Dori [1994] ECR I‑3325, paragraph 20; and Pfeiffer and Others , paragraph 108).
|
47. Vendar obveznost držav članic, ki izhaja iz direktive, da dosežejo rezultat, ki ga ta določa, in dolžnost, da sprejmejo vse ustrezne ukrepe, splošne ali posebne, da bi zagotovile izpolnjevanje te obveznosti, velja za vse organe teh držav članic, vključno s sodnimi organi v okviru njihovih pristojnosti (glej v tem smislu zlasti sodbi z dne 10. aprila 1984 v zadevi Von Colson in Kamann, 14/83, Recueil, str. 1891, točka 26, in z dne 13. novembra 1990 v zadevi Marleasing, C‑106/89, Recueil, str. I-4135, točka 8; zgoraj navedeno sodbo Faccini Dori, točka 26, sodbo z dne 18. decembra 1997 Inter-Environnement Wallonie, C‑129/96, Recueil, str. I‑7411, točka 40; zgoraj navedeno sodbo Pfeiffer in drugi, točka 110, in sodbo z dne 23. aprila 2009 v združenih zadevah Angelidaki in drugi, od C‑378/07 do C‑380/07, ZOdl., str. I-3071, točka 106).
|
|
47. However, the Member States’ obligation arising from a directive to achieve the result envisaged by that directive and their duty to take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular, to ensure the fulfilment of that obligation are binding on all the authorities of the Member States including, for matters within their jurisdiction, the courts (see, inter alia, to that effect, Case 14/83 von Colson and Kamann [1984] ECR 1891, paragraph 26; Case C‑106/89 Marleasing [1990] ECR I‑4135, paragraph 8; Faccini Dori , paragraph 26; Case C‑129/96 Inter-Environnement Wallonie [1997] ECR I‑7411, paragraph 40; Pfeiffer and Others , paragraph 110; and Joined Cases C‑378/07 to C‑380/07 Angelidaki and Others [2009] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 106).
|
48. Iz tega je razvidno, da je ob uporabi nacionalnega prava nacionalno sodišče, ki je dolžno podati razlago teh določb, zavezano storiti vse, kar je glede na samo besedilo in namen te direktive mogoče, da je rezultat v skladu s ciljem direktive in s tem s členom 288, tretji odstavek, PDEU (glej v tem smislu zgoraj navedene sodbe Van Colson in Kamann, točka 26; Marleasing, točka 8; Faccini Dori, točka 26, in Pfeiffer in drugi, točka 113). Zahteva po skladni razlagi nacionalnega prava je nujni sestavni del sistema pogodbe, saj nacionalnemu sodišču omogoča, da v okviru svojih pristojnosti zagotavlja polni učinek prava Unije, kadar odloča o sporu, ki poteka pred njim (glej v tem smislu zgoraj navedeno sodbo Pfeiffer in drugi, točka 114).
|
|
48. It follows that, in applying national law, the national court called on to interpret it is required to do so, as far as possible, in the light of the wording and the purpose of the directive in question, in order to achieve the result pursued by the directive and thereby comply with the third paragraph of Article 288 TFEU (see, to that effect, von Colson and Kamann , paragraph 26; Marleasing , paragraph 8; Faccini Dori , paragraph 26; and Pfeiffer and Others , paragraph 113). The requirement for national law to be interpreted in conformity with European Union law is inherent in the system of the Treaty, since it permits the national court, within the limits of its jurisdiction, to ensure the full effectiveness of European Union law when it determines the dispute before it (see, to that effect, Pfeiffer and Others , paragraph 114).
|
49. Člena 622(2), drugi pododstavek, BGB pa po mnenju predložitvenega sodišča zaradi njegove jasnosti in natančnosti ni mogoče razlagati tako, da bi bil v skladu z Direktivo 2000/78.
|
|
49. According to the national court, however, because of its clarity and precision, the second sentence of Paragraph 622(2) of the BGB is not open to an interpretation in conformity with Directive 2000/78.
|
50. V zvezi s tem je treba spomniti, da na eni strani, kot je bilo navedeno v točki 20 te sodbe, Direktiva 2000/78 ne uzakonja načela enakega obravnavanja pri zaposlovanju in delu, temveč ga le konkretizira, in da je na drugi strani načelo prepovedi diskriminacije na podlagi starosti splošno načelo prava Unije, saj pomeni posebno uporabo splošnega načela enakega obravnavanja (glej v tem smislu zgoraj navedeno sodbo Mangold, točke od 74 do 76).
|
|
50. It must be recalled here that, as stated in paragraph 20 above, Directive 2000/78 merely gives expression to, but does not lay down, the principle of equal treatment in employment and occupation, and that the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of age is a general principle of European Union law in that it constitutes a specific application of the general principle of equal treatment (see, to that effect, Mangold , paragraphs 74 to 76).
|
51. V teh okoliščinah mora nacionalno sodišče, ki mu je v odločanje predložen spor v zvezi z načelom prepovedi diskriminacije na podlagi starosti, kot ga konkretizira Direktiva 2000/78, v okviru svojih pristojnosti varovati pravice, ki jih pravo Unije zagotavlja posamezniku, in zagotavljati polni učinek tega prava s tem, da po potrebi ne uporabi nobene določbe nacionalne ureditve, ki je v nasprotju z navedenim načelom (glej v tem smislu zgoraj navedeno sodbo Mangold, točka 77).
|
|
51. In those circumstances, it for the national court, hearing a dispute involving the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of age as given expression in Directive 2000/78, to provide, within the limits of its jurisdiction, the legal protection which individuals derive from European Union law and to ensure the full effectiveness of that law, disapplying if need be any provision of national legislation contrary to that principle (see, to that effect, Mangold , paragraph 77).
|
52. Drugič, glede obveznosti nacionalnega sodišča, ki odloča v sporu med posamezniki, da Sodišču postavi vprašanje za predhodno odločanje o razlagi prava Unije, preden lahko opusti uporabo nacionalne določbe, ki je po njegovem mnenju v nasprotju s tem pravom, je treba poudariti, da je iz predložitvene odločbe razvidno, da je ta vidik vprašanja utemeljen z dejstvom, da predložitveno sodišče ne more opustiti uporabe veljavne določbe nacionalne zakonodaje, ne da bi prej Bundesverfassungsgericht (zvezno ustavno sodišče) to določbo razglasilo za protiustavno.
|
|
52. As regards, second, the obligation of the national court, hearing proceedings between individuals, to make a reference to the Court for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of European Union law before it can disapply a national provision which it considers to be contrary to that law, it is apparent from the order for reference that this aspect of the question has been raised because, under national law, the referring court cannot decline to apply a national provision in force unless that provision has first been declared unconstitutional by the Bundesverfassungsgericht (Federal Constitutional Court).
|
53. V zvezi s tem je treba poudariti, da potreba po zagotavljanju polnega učinka načela prepovedi diskriminacije na podlagi starosti, kot ga konkretizira Direktiva 2000/78, pomeni, da mora nacionalno sodišče ob obstoju nacionalne določbe, ki spada na področje uporabe prava Unije in po mnenju tega sodišča ni skladna z navedenim načelom, očitno pa je ni mogoče razlagati tako, da bi bila z njim v skladu, opustiti uporabo te določbe, ne da bi bilo pred tem dolžno vložiti predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe pri Sodišču in ne da bi mu bilo to prepovedano.
|
|
53. The need to ensure the full effectiveness of the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of age, as given expression in Directive 2000/78, means that the national court, faced with a national provision falling within the scope of European Union law which it considers to be incompatible with that principle, and which cannot be interpreted in conformity with that principle, must decline to apply that provision, without being either compelled to make or prevented from making a reference to the Court for a preliminary ruling before doing so.
|
54. Možnost, ki jo nacionalnemu sodišču tako priznava člen 267, drugi odstavek, PDEU, da pred opustitvijo uporabe nacionalne določbe, ki je v nasprotju s pravom Unije, predloži vprašanje za predhodno odločanje Sodišču, se ne more spremeniti v obveznost, ker nacionalno pravo temu sodišču ne dovoli opustitve uporabe nacionalne določbe, za katero meni, da je v nasprotju z ustavo, ne da bi ustavno sodišče pred tem razglasilo to določbo za protiustavno. Po načelu primarnosti prava Unije, ki velja tudi za načelo prepovedi diskriminacije na podlagi starosti, se nacionalna ureditev, ki spada na področje uporabe prava Unije in je z njim v nasprotju, ne sme uporabiti (glej v tem smislu zgoraj navedeno sodbo Mangold, točka 77).
|
|
54. The possibility thus given to the national court by the second paragraph of Article 267 TFEU of asking the Court for a preliminary ruling before disapplying the national provision that is contrary to European Union law cannot, however, be transformed into an obligation because national law does not allow that court to disapply a provision it considers to be contrary to the constitution unless the provision has first been declared unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court. By reason of the principle of the primacy of European Union law, which extends also to the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of age, contrary national legislation which falls within the scope of European Union law must be disapplied (see, to that effect, Mangold , paragraph 77).
|
55. Iz teh ugotovitev je razvidno, da nacionalno sodišče, ki odloča v sporu med posamezniki, nima dolžnosti, ampak možnost, da Sodišču predloži vprašanje za predhodno odločanje glede razlage načela prepovedi diskriminacije na podlagi starosti, kot ga konkretizira Direktiva 2000/78, pred opustitvijo uporabe določbe iz nacionalne ureditve, za katero meni, da je v nasprotju s tem načelom. Poljubnost te predložitve ni odvisna od pogojev notranjega prava, ki jih mora nacionalno sodišče spoštovati za opustitev uporabe nacionalne določbe, za katero meni, da je v nasprotju z ustavo.
|
|
55. It follows that the national court, hearing proceedings between individuals, is not obliged but is entitled to make a reference to the Court for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of age, as given expression by Directive 2000/78, before disapplying a provision of national law which it considers to be contrary to that principle. The optional nature of such a reference is not affected by the conditions of national law under which a court may disapply a national provision which it considers to be contrary to the constitution.
|
56. Ob upoštevanju vsega zgoraj navedenega je treba na drugo vprašanje odgovoriti, da mora nacionalno sodišče, ki mu je v odločanje predložen spor med posamezniki, zagotoviti spoštovanje načela prepovedi diskriminacije na podlagi starosti, kot ga konkretizira Direktiva 2000/78, po potrebi tako, da ne uporabi nobene določbe nacionalne ureditve, ki je z njim v nasprotju, ne glede na uveljavljanje možnosti, da v primerih iz člena 267, drugi odstavek, PDEU Sodišču predloži vprašanje za predhodno odločanje glede razlage tega načela.
|
|
56. In the light of the foregoing, the answer to Question 2 is that it is for the national court, hearing proceedings between individuals, to ensure that the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of age, as given expression in Directive 2000/78, is complied with, disapplying if need be any contrary provision of national legislation, independently of whether it makes use of its entitlement, in the cases referred to in the second paragraph of Article 267 TFEU, to ask the Court for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of that principle.
|
Stroški
|
|
Costs
|
57. Ker je ta postopek za stranki v postopku v glavni stvari ena od stopenj v postopku pred predložitvenim sodiščem, to odloči o stroških. Stroški, priglašeni za predložitev stališč Sodišču, ki niso stroški omenjenih strank, se ne povrnejo.
|
|
57. Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable.
|
|