natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
undoubtedly driven improvements, average time taken to close certain types of cases or procedures cannot be equated to the notion of reasonable time taken to deal with each individual case. 
kohtuasjade vi menetluste liikide lpetamiseks kulunud keskmine aeg ei vrdu aga veel iga konkreetse kohtuasja menetlemiseks kulunud mistliku ajaga.
CONSIDERATIONS FOR FURTHER IMPROVEMENT 98. 
VÍIMALUSED OLUKORRA EDASISEKS PARANDAMISEKS 98.
In order to improve case management, the CJEU should consider: (A) Measuring performance on a case by case basis by reference to a tailored timeframe, taking account of the actual resources employed. This would inform management of both problem cases and elements of good practice, and could be used to drive further efficiency gains. (B) Continuing the improvements made in terms of reporting on performance by moving toward the development of a system of reporting on the specific numbers of cases meeting expected time-frames rather than average length of types of cases. 
Kohtuasjade menetlemise parandamiseks peaks Euroopa Liidu Kohus kaaluma alljrgnevat: A) igusemistmise tulemuslikkuse juhtumiphist mtmist, mille aluseks on tegelikult kasutatud ressurssidel phinevad juhtumiphised thtajad. See annaks juhtkonnale teavet nii probleemsete kohtuasjade kui hea tava aspektide kohta, mida saaks kasutada thususe edasiseks parandamiseks; B) jtkata tulemuslikkuse alase aruandluse parandamist, vttes kasutusele ssteemi, mis annaks teavet seatud thtaegadele vastavate konkreetsete kohtuasjade arvu kohta (mitte ei nitaks teatud liiki kohtuasjade keskmist pikkust).
This Report was adopted by Chamber V, headed by Mr Lazaros S. LAZAROU, Member of the Court of Auditors, in Luxembourg at its meeting of 5 September 2017. 
46 V auditikoda, mida juhib kontrollikoja liige Lazaros S. LAZAROU, vttis kesoleva aruande vastu 5. septembri 2017. aasta koosolekul Luxembourgis.
For the Court of Auditors Klaus-Heiner LEHNE President 49 
Kontrollikoja nimel president Klaus-Heiner LEHNE 47
Factors influencing the duration of the handling of cases at the Court of Justice (indicated by Judges and Advocates-General) 2 Factors influencing the duration of the procedure after the written procedure Number of cases concerned (out of 30 cases) Number of cases indicated by Judges and/or Advocates-General combined (out of 30 cases) T otal (%) Judges Advocates - General Judicial vacations 18 4 19 63% Case raising new and/or particularly complex legal issues 9 8 12 40% Workload of the rfrendaire responsible for the file 8 7 12 40% Sickness, maternity/parental leave, or departure of a rfrendaire 7 6 12 40% Workload of the Reporting Judge and/or the Advocate-General 7 7 11 37% Voluminous case 5 / 5 17% Factually, economical or scientifically complicated. 
Euroopa Kohtus menetluste kestust mjutavad tegurid (kohtunike ja kohtujuristide hinnangul) 2 Kirjalikule menetlusele jrgnevaid menetlusse etappe mjutavad tegurid Asjassepuutuvate kohtuasjade arv (30 kohtuasjast) Kohtunike ja/vi kohtujuristide nimetatud kohtuasjade arv (30 kohtuasjast) Kokku (%) Kohtunikud Kohtujuristid Kohtu puhkused 18 4 19 63% Kohtuasi, milles ksitletakse uusi ja/vi eriti keerukaid iguslikke ksimusi 9 8 12 40% Kohtuasjaga tegeleva nuniku tkoormus 8 7 12 40% Nuniku haigus, emadus-/vanemapuhkus vi tlt lahkumine 7 6 12 40% Ettekandja-kohtuniku ja/vi kohtujuristi tkoormus 7 7 11 37% Mahukas kohtuasi 5 / 5 17% Faktiliselt, majanduslikult vi teaduslikult keerukas kohtuasi Keerukas kohtuasi (nt uute tehnoloogiate teemaline) 2 3 5 17% Muudel phjustel keerukas kohtuasi 1 3 4 13% Mnekuuse vahega algatatud seotud kohtuasjade koordineeritud menetlemine 3 2 3 10% Mitteformaalne peatamine 3 / 3 10% Eelisjrjekorras menetleti mnda teist prioriteetset kohtuasja vi kiirendatud menetluse korras menetletud kohtuasja (eelotsuse kiirmenetlust) 2 1 3 10% Menetluse suulise osa uuendamine 2 / 2 7% Muu 2 / 2 7% Eelotsusetaotluse esitanud kohtult teabe vi selgituste ksimine 2 / 2 7% Valdkond, kus liikmesriikide igusaktid on vga erinevad 2 / 2 7% Kohtuasjade rhma koordineeritud menetlemine (nt konkurentsivastaste kokkulepetega seotud kohtuasjad) 1 1 2 7% Kohtuasja mramine teisele kohtukoosseisule 1 1 2 7% Ettekandja-kohtuniku ja/vi kohtujuristi mandaadi lppemine 1 / 1 3% Uurimist tegemise taotlus 1 / 1 3% Pooltele kirjalikuks vastamiseks ksimuste saatmine / 1 1 3%
Check-list for the assessment of CEPEJ time management indicators ANNEX III 1 CEPEJ indicator Main check-list questions (1) Ability to assess the overall length of proceedings Is there a unique identifier (e.g. a case number) or connector for each proceeding, from the instigation to the final and binding decision? 
Vime hinnata menetluse kogukestust Kas igale kohtuasjale antakse oma kordumatu tunnus (nt kohtuasja number), mida kasutatakse kohtuasja algusest kuni lpliku siduva lahendi tegemiseni?
Can you determine the overall length of proceedings for all cases pending? 
Kas te suudate kindlaks teha kigi pooleliolevate kohtuasjade menetluste kogukestused?
(2) Established standards for duration of proceedings Have you developed standards for optimum time-frames in relevant types of proceedings? 
Menetluse kestuse standardid Kas olete vlja ttanud standardid erinevate menetluse liikide optimaalsete kestuste kohta?
Is the length of proceedings predictable for the users (parties, lawyers, others)? 
Kas menetluse kestus on kasutajate (pooled, advokaadid jne) jaoks prognoositav?
(3) Sufficiently elaborated typology of cases Is there a categorization of cases with regard to their complexity and duration? 
3. Piisavalt phjalik kohtuasjade liikide klassifikatsioon Kas te kategoriseerite kohtuasju vastavalt nende keerukusele ja kestusele?
(4) Ability to monitor course of proceedings Do you monitor and collect data about the timing of the most important stages in most types of cases, with a view to establishing where and why delays occur? 
Vime jlgida kohtumenetluse edenemist Kas te jlgite ja kogute andmeid enamiku kohtuasjade kige olulisemate etappide kestuse kohta, eesmrgiga teha kindlaks viivituste tekkimise kohad ja phjused?
Are there procedures to promptly identify delay and reduce the impact of delays on the parties? 
Kas on olemas protseduurid selleks, et viivitus kiiresti avastada ja selle mju kohtuasja poolte jaoks vhendada?
(6) The use of modern technology as a tool for time management in the justice system Is information technology effectively used to monitor length of proceedings? 
Moodsa tehnoloogia kasutamine kohtussteemi ajakasutuse juhtimiseks Kas menetluse kestuse jlgimiseks kasutatakse thusalt infotehnoloogiat?
Does information technology enable prompt production of statistical reports and planning at the policy level? 
Kas infotehnoloogia vimaldab statistiliste aruannete kiiret koostamist ja kavandatud poliitika elluviimist?
Source: Time management checklist (Check-list of indicators for the analysis of lengths of proceedings in the justice system) (CEPEJ, 2005). 
Allikas: Ajakasutuse kontrollnimekiri (Check-list of indicators for the analysis of lengths of proceedings in the justice system) (CEPEJ 2005).
The black lines represent the trend-lines which show where a case may be expected to fall given its complexity score. The points further away from the trend-lines represent those cases which may have characteristics meriting further examination. Source: ECA. 
Tendentse kujutavatest joontest kaugemal asuvad jooned kujutavad kohtuasju, mis viksid oma tunnustest tulenevalt vrida edasist uurimist. Allikas: Euroopa Kontrollikoda.
1 Duration (months) increases Duration (months) increases 
1 Kestus (kuudes) pikeneb Kestus (kuudes) pikeneb
REPLIES OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION Paragraphs I and II Efficiency, quality and independence are the main parameters of an effective justice system. 
EUROOPA LIIDU KOHTU VASTUSED Punktid I ja II Toimiva kohtussteemi phitunnused on thusus, kvaliteet ja sltumatus1.
1 It follows that the duration of proceedings is one of several factors to be taken into account when evaluating a judicial system. 
Sellest jreldub, et kohtussteemi arengu hindamisel tuleb muude nitajate hulgas arvestada kohtumenetluse kestust.
In their pursuit of efficiency, the Courts comprising the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) are guided by the need to find a balance between rapidity, on the one hand, and the quality of judicial review and of court decisions, on the other, in a context characterised by an overall increase in their workload. 
Euroopa Liidu Kohtu moodustavad kohtud on oma tegevuse thususe tagamisel juhindunud vajadusest tasakaalustada ldise tkoormuse tusu kontekstis helt poolt menetluse kiirus ja teiselt poolt kohtuliku kontrolli ja kohtulahendite kvaliteet.
The Court of Justice and the General Court have taken numerous organisational and procedural measures with a view to enhancing their efficiency in dealing with cases. 
Euroopa Kohus ja ldkohus vtsid kohtuasjade lahendamise thustamiseks arvukalt organisatsioonilisi ja menetluslikke meetmeid.
Thus, the average duration of a case before the Court of Justice was 19.6 months in 2006 and 14.7 months in 2016, while, before the General Court, that duration was 25.8 months in 2006 and 18.7 months in 2016. 
Keskmiselt kulus Euroopa Kohtus he kohtuasja lahendamiseks 2006. aastal 19,6 kuud ja 2016. aastal 14,7 kuud, samas kui ldkohtul kulus selleks 2006. aastal 25,8 kuud ja 2016. aastal 18,7 kuud.
It should be noted that, during the same period, the number of cases brought increased significantly. 
Olgu eldud, et samal ajal suurenes sissetulnud kohtuasjade arv oluliselt.
This monitoring may give rise to specific corrective actions. Active and individualised case-management is therefore an objective which the Courts have already long strived to achieve. 
Kohtuasjade lbivaatamise toimiv ja individualiseeritud haldus on seega eesmrk, mille nimel on kohtud juba ammu tegutsenud.
In that context, the Court of AuditorsŐ recommendation that the time-frames should be further refined by taking into account the specific nature of each type of proceedings and the complexity of the cases can only be welcomed (see paragraph 98). 
Niisuguses kontekstis jb le vaid tervitada Euroopa Kontrollikoja soovitust edendada tiendavalt planeerimismeetmeid, vttes arvesse iga menetluse eripra ja kohtuasjade keerukust (vt punkt 98).
With regard to a system of monitoring the actual use of the human resources employed at each stage of each of the cases that the two Courts deal with each year (for example, in 2016, the Court of Justice and the General Court disposed of 1459 cases), also recommended by the Court of Auditors, the CJEU takes the view that the study of its implementation will have to take into account the non-negligible administrative burden and use of resources which this might entail. 
Mis puudutab aga Euroopa Kontrollikoja soovitatud arvepidamise ssteemi selle vljaselgitamiseks, kui palju kulub tegelikult ressursse mlema kohtu iga-aastaselt lbivaadatavate kohtuasjade iga menetlusetapi jaoks (niteks 2016. aastal lahendasid Euroopa Kohus ja ldkohus 1459 kohtuasja), siis leiab Euroopa Liidu Kohus, et niisuguse arvepidamise ssteemi loomist ksitlevas analsis tuleb arvestada, et sellega vib kaasneda mrkimisvrne halduskoormus ja ressursikulu.
Those considerations will have to be balanced against the specific utility of the analysis of the data obtained by means of such a system. 
Viimased peavad olema tasakaalus taolise ssteemi abil saadavate andmete analsist konkreetselt tusva tuluga.
Paragraph 4 The number of cases brought before the EU Courts did not remain stable during the period 2006-2016. 
Punkt 4 Liidu kohtutele lahendamiseks esitatud kohtuasjade arv ei ole ajavahemikul 2006-2016 psinud stabiilsena.
The stock increased during that period, despite the significant increase in productivity, because of an even greater increase in the number of cases brought, as a result of, inter alia, the successive enlargements of the European Union, the expansion of the powers of the European Union and the increase in the number and variety of legislative and regulatory acts. 
Vaatamata tootlikkuse olulisele kasvule on lahendamist ootavate kohtuasjade arv nimetatud ajavahemikul tusnud, sest algatatud kohtuasjade arv on veelgi enam suurenenud muu hulgas Euroopa Liidu jrjestikuste laienemiste, Euroopa Liidu pdevuste suurenemise ning seadusandliku ja regulatiivse tegevuse intensiivistumise ja mitmekesistumise tttu.
The CJEU wishes to draw attention to the fact that, while the number of cases brought before the three Courts which comprised the institution increased by 43.6% between 2006 and 2016, the number of cases closed each year by those Courts during that same period increased by almost 57.3%. 
Euroopa Liidu Kohus soovib juhtida thelepanu asjaolule, et ajavahemikul 2006-2016 on institutsiooni kuulunud kolmele kohtule lahendamiseks esitatud kohtuasjade arv suurenenud 43,6%, samas kui nende kohtuasjade arv, mille kolm nimetatud kohut on lpuni menetlenud, on samal perioodil suurenenud 57,3%.
While paragraph 4 considers the Courts overall, Figure 1 presents the results for each Court. 
Punktis 4 on ksitletud kohtute koondtulemusi, joonisel 1 on aga esitatud tulemused iga kohtu kohta eraldi.
Paragraph 7 As noted in paragraphs I to III above, the key challenge for the CJEU is to ensure a balance between rapidity and the quality of its decisions. 
Punkt 7 Nagu sai eespool punktides I-III mrgitud, on Euroopa Liidu Kohtu peamine vljakutse tagada tasakaal menetluse kiiruse ja kohtulahendite kvaliteedi vahel.
The CJEU is extremely sensitive to the need, mentioned by the Court of Auditors, to 1 The EU 2016 Justice Scoreboard (COM(2016) 199 final), p. 7. 
1 The EU 2016 Justice Scoreboard (COM (2016) 199 final), lk 7.
It must nevertheless be emphasised that the quality of judicial decisions is of prime importance in a Union based on the rule of law. 
Tuleb siiski toonitada, et igusel phinevas liidus on kohtulahendite kvaliteet mrava thtsusega.
The adoption of consistent and reasoned decisions which respect the rights of the parties to the proceedings ensures legal certainty and the right to effective judicial protection. 
Sidusate, phistatud ning poolte igusi austavate kohtulahendite tegemine tagab iguskindluse ja iguse thusale kohtulikule kaitsele.
Paragraph 9 As the report rightly points out, the various measures adopted by the Court of Justice and the General Court in recent years have produced significant results. 
Punkt 9 Nagu aruandes on igesti mrgitud, on erinevad meetmed, mille Euroopa Kohus ja ldkohus on aastate jooksul vtnud, andnud arvestatavaid tulemusi.
Despite a considerable increase in the number of cases brought before those Courts, the number of cases which they closed has increased substantially and the overall duration of proceedings, across all categories, has decreased very significantly. 
Neile kohtutele lahendamiseks esitatud kohtuasjade arv on kll oluliselt suurenenud, ent ka lahendatud kohtuasjade arv on mrkimisvrselt suurenenud ja kohtuasjade lahendamise kogukestus on kiki kategooriaid koos arvestades oluliselt vhenenud.
Figure 2 The average duration of proceedings, both before the Court of Justice and before the General Court, has fallen consistently for several years. 
Joonis 2 Kohtumenetluse keskmine kestus nii Euroopa Kohtus kui ka ldkohtus on mitmete aastate jooksul regulaarselt vhenenud.
Figure 2 illustrates only the assertion in paragraph 9 that that positive trend could not be confirmed for each type of proceedings. 
Joonis2 illustreerib ksnes punktis9 esitatud videt, mille kohaselt niisugune soodne areng ei ole aset leidnud kigi menetluse tpide osas.
In addition, the choice of a representation by subject-matter/type of proceedings on a year-by-year basis does not reflect trends, because of the Ôsawtooth effectŐ. A presentation in the form of triennial averages would show that there is a consistent downward trend in the average duration of proceedings, including by subject-matter/type of proceedings. 
Menetlusvaldkonna-vi -tbiphine esitus aastate kaupa ei vimalda kikumiste tttu suundumusi vlja tuua. Kolme aasta keskmisi tulemusi kajastav esitus vimaldaks tuvastada, et keskmised menetlusthtajad lhenevad, sealhulgas menetlusvaldkonna vi Đtbi kaupa.
Lastly, those graphs give an incomplete picture of the results achieved by the two Courts in terms of the reduction in the duration of proceedings as they do not establish a correlation between the duration of the proceedings and the number of cases concerned. 
Need graafikud annavad kahe kohtu tulemustest menetlusthtaegade vhendamisel mittetieliku pildi, sest nad ei nita ra menetluse kestuse ja asjassepuutuvate kohtuasjade arvu omavahelist suhet.
For example, a cursory reading of the graph relating to the average duration of proceedings before the Court of Justice gives the impression that that duration increased even though the proceedings concerned by the longest duration are direct actions Đ which, today, represent only a very small portion of the cases brought before the Court of Justice (5.05% of the total number of cases brought before the Court of Justice in 2016) Đ whereas the average duration of proceedings in cases involving references for a preliminary ruling and in appeal cases, which represent the bulk of the cases brought before the Court of Justice (respectively 67.92% and 25.29% in 2016), has decreased continuously. 
Niteks jtab kiire pilguheit Euroopa Kohtu menetluste keskmist kestust kajastavale graafikule mulje, et see kestus on kasvanud, samas kui kige pikemad menetlused on hagiasjades, mis moodustavad tnapeval ksnes vikese osa Euroopa Kohtu lahendada olevatest kohtuasjadest (5,05% kigist Euroopa Kohtule 2016. aastal esitatud kohtuasjadest), samas kui menetluse kestus eelotsusetaotluste ja apellatsioonkaebuste asjades, mis moodustab phiosa Euroopa Kohtule esitatud kohtuasjadest (2016. aastal vastavalt 67,92% ja 25,29%), on jtkuvalt vhenenud.
Moreover, even with regard to direct actions, the average duration has not increased between 2006 and 2016. 
Tegelikult ei ole menetluse keskmine kestus ka hagiasjades ajavahemikul 2006-2016 kasvanud.
Likewise, in regard to the General Court, the duration of intellectual-property cases and Ôother direct actionsŐ (which together represent 73% of the cases closed in 2016) has been falling continuously since 2013. 
Mis puudutab ldkohut, siis on menetluse kestus intellektuaalomandit ksitlevates kohtuasjades ja ămuudes hagiasjadesŇ (mis moodustavad 73% 2016. aastal lpetatud kohtuasjadest) alates 2013. aastast jrjepidevalt vhenenud.
Paragraph 10 The objectives of the reform are those set out in the recitals of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2015/2422 of 16 December 2015 amending Protocol No 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union (OJ 2015 L 341, p. 14). 
Punkt 10 Reformi eesmrke on kirjeldatud Euroopa Parlamendi ja nukogu 16. detsembri 2015. aasta mruse (EL, Euratom) 2015/2422, millega muudetakse protokolli nr 3 Euroopa Liidu Kohtu phikirja kohta (ELT 2015, L 341, lk 14) phjendustes.
That principle, which applies to the Court of Justice and to the General Court (under Article 53 of that protocol), implies that the individual positions of the Members of the Courts must not be revealed in any way. 
See phimte on kohaldatav nii Euroopa Kohtu kui ka ldkohtu suhtes ja thendab, et nende kohtute liikmete individuaalseid seisukohti mingil viisil ei avaldata.
That principle explains why the Court of Auditors could not be given access to a small number of documents covered by the secrecy of deliberations. 
Nimetatud phimttega on selgitatav asjaolu, et Euroopa Kontrollikoda ei saanud tutvuda piiratud arvu dokumentidega, mille suhtes rakendub nupidamiste saladus.
That restriction does not in any way reflect a desire on the part of the Court of Justice or the General Court to limit access to certain documents. 
Niisugune piirang ei peegelda kuidagi Euroopa Kohtu ega ldkohtu soovi piirata teatavate dokumentide kttesaadavust.
It is a requirement imposed by primary law and to disregard that principle would lead to a breach of the oath taken by the Judges and the Advocates General when taking office, for which they could be held liable (see, in this regard, Title I of the abovementioned protocol). 
See on kohustuslik tulenevalt esmasest igusest ja selle phimtte jrgimata jtmine thendab, et rikutakse vannet, mille kohtunikud ja kohtujuristid annavad ametisse astudes ja mis vib kaasa tuua nende vastutusele vtmise (vt selle kohta eelnimetatud protokolli I jaotist).
Paragraph 24 The assertion that the absence of a rfrendaire may have an adverse impact on the efficient processing of cases must be placed in context. For voluminous or complex cases which must be dealt with rapidly, it is not uncommon for several rfrendaires to be required to work together. Furthermore, when justified by the nature or the duration of a rfrendaireŐs absence, measures are taken with a view to minimising the impact of that absence on the continuity of case-management, including the reallocation of cases to another rfrendaire in the Cabinet or the temporary employment of a replacement, in accordance with the relevant statutory conditions. 
Punkt 24 Tdemust, et igusnuniku puudumine vib kohtuasja thusat lahendamist kahjustada, tuleb nha suhtelisena. Mahukate ja keerukate kohtuasjade puhul, mis tuleb kiiresti lahendada, ei ole haruldane, et mitmel igusnunikul tuleb ttada koosts.
Figure 4 With regard to the presentation of the duration of the various steps in cases dealt with by way of an order, it is necessary to have regard for the fact that an order closing proceedings may, depending on the circumstances and for a variety of reasons, be made at any time in the proceedings, from the beginning of the written part of the procedure up to the deliberation stage (for example, in the event of a case being withdrawn). 
Joonis 4 Seoses diagrammiga, mis kajastab menetluse kestust kohtumrusega lahendatud kohtuasjade eri menetlusetappide likes, tuleb arvesse vtta asjaolu, et kohtumenetlust lpetav mrus vidakse, sltuvalt asjaoludest ja erinevatel phjustel, teha mis tahes menetlusetapis alates kirjaliku menetluse algusest kuni kohtuasjas toimuva nupidamiseni (niteks hagist loobumise korral).
Paragraph 29 Reference is made, regarding this point, to the considerations set out above in relation to Figure 4. 
Punkt 29 Selle punktiga seoses tuleb viidata kaalutlustele, mis esitati eespool seoses joonisega 4.
Paragraph 46 The Members of the Court of Justice and of the General Court, assisted by their rfrendaires, work in parallel on several cases, as a Judge-Rapporteur, Assessing Judge or Advocate General. 
Punkt 46 Euroopa Kohtu ja ldkohtu liikmed, keda abistavad nende igusnunikud, ttavad kas ettekandja-kohtuniku, koja liikme vi kohtujuristina paralleelselt mitmete toimikutega.
Although it is possible to list, for each case, factors capable of explaining why some proceedings last longer than others (such as the size of a case-file, the complexity of the case or the temporary unavailability of the rfrendaire responsible for the case), the precise evaluation of the time attributable to each of those factors would require the implementation of a complex monitoring system, the advantages of which are not immediately obvious. 
Ehkki iga kohtuasja puhul on vimalik loetleda asjaolud, millega saab selgitada, miks ks menetlus on pikem kui teine (niteks toimiku maht, kohtuasja keerukus vi asjaolu, et kohtuasja eest vastutaval igusnunikul ei ole ajutiselt vimalik selle kohtuasjaga tegeleda), nuab tpse hinnangu andmine sellele, kui palju aega iga teguri tttu kulus, et rakendataks ellu keerukas arvepidamise ssteem, mille eelised ei ole ilmsed.
The decisions delivered by the Court of Justice and the General Court are, moreover, the result of collaborative efforts on the part of all of the Judges, who come from different legal systems, in the formation hearing the case. 
Euroopa Kohtu ja ldkohtu lahendid on pealegi kollektiivse t vili, millesse on aktiivselt panustanud kik koosseisu kuuluvad kohtunikud, kes on prit erinevatest igusssteemidest.