natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Directive 2003/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 96/92/EC (OJ 2003 L 176, p.
Direktiva 2003/54/EZ Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 26. lipnja 2003. o zajedničkim pravilima za unutarnje tržište električne energije i stavljanju van snage Direktive 96/92/EZ (SL L 176., str.
37) and Directive 2003/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 98/30/EC (OJ 2003 L 176, p.
37.) i Direktiva 2003/55/EZ Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 26. lipnja 2003. o zajedničkim pravilima za unutarnje tržište prirodnog plina i stavljanju izvan snage Direktive 98/30/EZ (SL L 176., str.
57).
57.) .
Luxembourg, 23 October 2013
U Luxembourgu, 23. listopada 2013.
Formal sitting of the Court of Justice
Svečana sjednica Suda
Entry into office of new Members at the Court of Justice and the General Court
Stupanje na dužnost novih članova Suda i Općeg suda
The number of Advocates General at the Court of Justice is increased to nine
Broj nezavisnih odvjetnika na Sudu povećan na devet
A declaration 1 annexed to the Final Act of the Intergovernmental Conference which adopted the Treaty of Lisbon states that ‘if, in accordance with Article 252, first paragraph, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the Court of Justice requests that the number of Advocates General be increased by three (eleven instead of eight), the Council will, acting unanimously, agree on such an increase.
Sukladno Izja vi 1 priloženoj završnom aktu Međuvladine konferencije na kojoj je usvojen Ugovor iz Lisabona, ako „Sud zatraži da se broj nezavisnih odvjetnika poveća za tri (jedanaest umjesto osam), Vijeće će se, odlučujući jednoglasno, složiti s takvim povećanjem.
In that case, the Conference agrees that Poland will, as is already the case for Germany, France, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom, have a permanent Advocate General and no longer take part in the rotation system, while the existing rotation system will involve the rotation of five Advocates General instead of three’.
U tom je slučaju Konferencija suglasna da Poljska, kao je što je to već slučaj s Njemačkom, Francuskom, Italijom, Španjolskom i Ujedinjenom Kraljevinom, ima stalnog nezavisnog odvjetnika i da više ne sudjeluje u sustavu rotacije, pri čemu će sadašnji sustav rotacije uključivati rotaciju petorice nezavisnih odvjetnika umjesto trojice.“
On 16 January 2013 the Court of Justice requested that the number of Advocates General be increased by three.
Sud je 16. siječnja 2013. zatražio povećanja broja nezavisnih odvjetnika za tri.
It pointed out in particular that, following the successive accessions of new Member States to the EU and by reason of both the adaptation of the EU’s institutional framework in connection with the Treaty of Lisbon’s entry into force and of the new areas of jurisdiction conferred upon the Court by that Treaty, the number of cases has been constantly increasing for a number of years.
Osobito je naglasio da, uslijed uzastopnih pristupanja novih država članica Europskoj uniji, kako zbog prilagodbe institucionalnom okviru Unije vezanom za stupanje na snagu Ugovora iz Lisabona, tako zbog novih nadležnosti koje su joj tim Ugovorom dodijeljene, broj predmeta se unazad nekoliko godina stalno povećava.
The Council decided, by decision of 25 June 2013, to increase the number of Advocates General to nine with effect from 1 July 2013 and to eleven with effect from 7 October 2015.
Vijeće je odlukom od 25. lipnja 2013. odlučilo povećati broj nezavisnih odvjetnika na devet, s učinkom od 1. siječnja 2013., te na jedanaest, s učinkom od 7. listopada 2015.
By decision of 16 October 2013, the representatives of the governments of the Member States appointed Mr Maciej Szpunar as Advocate General for the period from 16 October 2013 to 6 October 2018.
Odlukom od 16. listopada 2013., predstavnici vlada država članica imenovali su Macieja Szpunara nezavisnim odvjetnikom za razdoblje od 16. listopada 2013. do 6. listopada 2018.
In addition, on account of the resignation of Mr Uno Lõhmus , by decision of 26 June 2013 the representatives of the governments of the Member States appointed Ms Küllike Jürimäe, a Judge at the General Court, as Judge at the Court of Justice for the period from 6 October 2013 to 6 October 2015.
S druge strane, zbog ostavke Unoa Lõhmusa, predstavnici vlada država članica imenovali su, odlukom od 26. lipnja 2013., Küllike Jürimäe, sutkinju Općeg suda, na dužnost sutkinje Suda za razdoblje od 6. listopada 2013. do 6. listopada 2015.
By decision of 16 October 2013, Mr Lauri Madise was appointed as Judge at the General Court for the period from 6 October 2013 to 31 August 2016.
Odlukom od 16. listopada 2013. za suca Općeg suda za razdoblje od 6. listopada 2013. do 31.kolovoza 2016. imenovan je Lauri Madise.
In the context of the partial renewal of the membership of the General Court, by decision of 16 October 2013 the representatives of the governments of the Member States renewed the term of office of Ms Irena Pelikánová for the period from 1 September 2013 to 31 August 2019.
U okviru djelomične zamjene na Općem sudu, predstavnici država članica su, odlukom od 16. listopada 2013., obnovili mandat Irene Pelikánove za razdoblje od 1. rujna 2013. do 31. kolovoza 2019.
At the formal sitting held today in Luxembourg, the new Members of the Court of Justice and the General Court of the European Union took the oath on their entry into office.
Tijekom svečane sjednice koja se danas održala u Luxembourgu, novi članovi Suda i Općeg suda Europske unije položili su prisegu prilikom preuzimanja dužnosti.
Curriculum vitae of Mr Maciej Szpunar
Životopis Macieja Szpunara
Curriculum vitae of Ms Küllike Jürimäe
Životopis Küllike Jürimäe
Born 1962; law degree, University of Tartu (1981-86); Assistant to the Public Prosecutor, Tallinn (1986-91); Diploma, Estonian School of Diplomacy (1991-92); Legal Adviser (1991-93) and General Counsel at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry (1992-93); Judge, Tallinn Court of Appeal (1993-2004); European Masters in Human Rights and Democratisation, Universities of Padua and Nottingham (2002-03); Judge at the General Court from 12 May 2004 to 23 October 2013; Judge at the Court of Justice since 23 October 2013.
rođena 1962; diploma iz prava na sveučilištu u Tartuu (1981.-1986.); pomoćnica javnog tužitelja u Tallinnu (1986. -1991.); diploma Diplomatske škole Estonije (1991.-1992.); pravna savjetnica (1991.-1993.) i opća savjetnica pri trgovačkoj i industrijskoj komori (1992.-1993.); sutkinja na prizivnom sudu Tallinna (1993-2004); European Master iz ljudskih prava i demokratizacije, sveučilišta u Padovi i Nottinghamu (2002.-2003.); sutkinja Općeg suda od 12. svibnja 2004. do 23. listopada 2013.; sutkinja na Sudu od 23. listopada 2013.
Curriculum vitae of Mr Lauri Madise
Životopis Laurija Madisea
Born 1974; degrees in law (Universities of Tartu and Poitiers); Adviser in the Ministry of Justice (1995-99); Head of the Secretariat of the Constitutional Committee of the Estonian Parliament (1999-2000); Judge at the Court of Appeal, Tallinn (from 2002); Member of the Judges’ Examination Commission (from 2005); participation in legislative work concerning constitutional law and administrative law; Judge at the General Court since 23 October 2013.
rođen 1974.; diploma iz prava (sveučilišta u Tartuu i Poitiersu); savjetnik u Ministarstvu pravosuđa (1995.-1999.); voditelj tajništva ustavnog odbora estonskog parlamenta (1999.-2000.); sudac prizivnog suda u Talinu (od 2002.); član sudbene ispitivačke komisije (od 2005.); sudjelovanje u zakonodavnim djelatnostima u području ustavnog i uprav nog prava; sudac Općeg suda od 23. listopada 2013.
Images of the formal sitting are available on ‘ Europe by Satellite ’ (+32) 2 2964106
Snimke svečane sjednice dostupne nalaze se na „ Europe by Satellite “ (+32) 2 2964106
PRESS RELEASE No 144/13
PRIOPĆENJE ZA MEDIJE br.
Luxembourg, 24 October 2013
Luxembourgu, 24. listopada 2013.
Judgment s in Case C‑22/12
Presuda u predmetima C-22/12 i C-277/12
If national law allows family members of the victim of a road traffic accident to seek compensation for non‑material damage suffered, that compensation must be covered by compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles
Ako nacionalno pravo dozvoljava članovim a obitelji žrtve prometne nezgode da zahtijevaju naknadu pretrpljene neimovinske štete, ona mora biti pokrivena obveznim osiguranjem motornog vozila
In such a case, the minimum cover laid down under EU law for personal injuries also applies to non‑material damage
U takvom slučaju , iznos minimalnog pokrića koji pravo Unije predviđa za tjelesne ozlijede primjenjuje se također na neimovinsku štetu
The First Directive 1 on compulsory insurance requires the Member States to ensure that civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles normally based in their territory is covered by insurance.
Prva direkt iva 1 Unije o obveznom osiguranju motornih vozila zahtjeva od država članica da vozila koja se uobičajeno nalaze na njihovim područjima budu pokrivena osiguranjem.
Although the Member States are free to determine the damage covered by that insurance and the detailed rules in that respect, the Second Directive 2 adopted in this field provides that insurance must cover personal injuries to a minimum amount of €1 million per victim or €5 million per claim, irrespective of the number of victims in the latter case.
Iako su države članice slobodne utvrditi opseg pokrivene odgovornosti i uvjete osiguravateljevog pokrića, Druga direktiva 2 donesena u ovom području predviđa da osiguranje mora obvezno pokriti štetu nastalu zbog tjelesne ozlijede u visini minimalnog iznosa od 1 milijun eura po žrtvi ili 5 milijuna eura po nezgodi, u posljednjem slučaju bez obzira na broj žrtava.
Similarly, it must also cover material damage to a minimum amount of €1 million per claim, irrespective of the number of victims.
Također, ono također mora obuhvatiti oštećenje stvari u visini minimalnog iznosa od 1 milijun eura po nezgodi, bez obzira na broj žrtava.
Mrs Holingová’s car, registered in Slovakia and in which Mr Haas was a passenger, collided with a heavy goods vehicle registered in the Czech Republic.
Vozilo B. Holingovâ u kojem se nalazio V. Haas, registrirano u Slovačkoj, sudarilo se s teškim teretnim vozilom registriranim u Republici Češkoj.
Mr Petrík, who was held responsible for that accident, was ordered, inter alia, to pay compensation to Mrs Haasová, the victims’s wife, for the damage she suffered as a result of the accident.
R. Petrík, koji je proglašen odgovornim za ovu nezgodu, osuđen je između ostalog na naknadu štete koju je K. Haasová, supruga žrtve, pretrpjela zbog nezgode.
Nonetheless, Mrs Haasová and her daughter are also claiming, from Mrs Holingová’s insurer, compensation for the non‑material damage resulting from the loss of their husband and father.
Unatoč tome, K. Haasová i njena kćer zahtijevaju također od osiguravatelja B. Holingovâ, naknadu neimovinske štete prouzročene gubitkom njihovog oca i supruga.
However, considering that compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles does not cover, under Slovak compulsory insurance law, non‑material damage, Mrs Holingová’s insurer refuses to pay such compensation.
Međutim, s obzirom da prema slovačkom pravu o obveznom osiguranju, obvezno osiguranje motornih vozila ne pokriva neimovinsku štetu, osiguratelj B. Holingove odbija isplatiti takvu naknadu.
The Krajský súd v Prešove (Regional Court of Prešove, Slovakia) a sks the Court of Justice whether such compulsory insurance must cover compensation for non‑material damage suffered by the next of kin of the deceased victims of a road traffic accident.
Krajský súd v Prešove (regionalni sud iz Prešova, Slovačka) je postavio Sudu pitanje mora li obvezno osiguranje motornih vozila pokrivati naknadu neimovinske štete koju pretrpe bliski srodnici žrtava koje su poginule u prometnoj nezgodi.
In its judgment, the Court of justice finds, first of all , that the obligation to provide insurance cover against civil liability for damage caused to third parties by motor vehicles is distinct from the extent of the compensation to be afforded to them on the basis of the civil liability of the insured person.
U svojoj presudi S ud prije svega podsjeća da je obveza pokrića štete koju su prouzrokovala motorna vozila osiguranjem na temelju građanskopravne odgovornosti različita od opsega naknade ove štete na temelju građanskopravne odgovornosti osiguranika.
Whereas the former is defined and guaranteed by EU law, the latter is, essentially, governed by national law.
Naime, dok je prvo pokriće propisano i zajamčeno pravom Unije, opseg njene naknade je prvenstveno uređen nacionalnim pravom.
However, the Court points out that it is in order to reduce the disparities which continued to exist between the laws of the Member States with respect to the extent of the obligation of insurance cover that EU law required compulsory cover against civil liability, for both damage to property and personal injuries, up to specified sums laid down in the Second Directive.
Ipak, Sud navodi da je Unija, s ciljem da se smanje razlike koje postoje između zakonodavstva država članica u odnosu na opseg obveze osiguranja, propisala u području građanskopravne odgovornosti obvezno pokriće oštećenja stvari i tjelesnih ozljeda do visine iznosa propisanih Drugom direktivom.
The Member States are thus free to determine the damage covered and the terms and conditions of compulsory insurance, provided that they comply with the rules laid down under EU law.
Države članice su stoga obvezne utvrditi opseg pokrivene odgovornosti kao i uvjete obveznog osiguranja motornih vozila uzimajući u obzir pravna pravila Unije.
Next, the Court points out that personal injuries, in respect of which cover is compulsory under the Second Directive, includes any type of damage resulting from an injury to physical integrity, including both physical and psychological suffering.
Nadalje , Sud precizira da tjelesne ozlijede čije je osiguranje obvezno temeljem Druge direktive podrazumijevaju svu štetu koja proizlazi iz nanošenja ozlijede osobi , što podrazumijeva patnje, kako fizičke tako i psihičke.
Thus, non‑material damage, compensation for which is provided for as part of the civil liability of the insured person, under the national law applicable in the dispute, features among the types of damage in respect of which compensation must be provided in accordance with EU law.
U skladu s tim, u štetu koja se mora naknaditi u skladu s pravom Unije uključena je neimovinska šteta čija je naknada, na temelju građanskopravne odgovornosti osiguranika, predviđena nacionalnim pravom koje se primjenjuje u glavnom postupku.
Fina lly, the Court states that the protection which must be assured under that directive extends to anyone who is entitled, under national civil liability law, to compensation for damage caused by motor vehicles.
Na posljetku, Sud navodi da zaštita iz Prve direktive obuhvaća sve osobe koje na temelju nacionalnog prava o građanskopravnoj odgovornosti imaju pravo na naknadu štete uzrokovane motornim vozilima.
Since, in accordance with the information submitted by the Slovak court, Czech law grants Mrs Haasová and her daughter the right to compensation for the non‑material damage suffered as a result of the death of their spouse and father, they should thus be able to benefit from the protection afforded by that directive.
Budući da češko pravo, prema navodima slovačkog suda, K. Haasová i njezinoj kćeri daje pravo na naknadu neimovinske štete pretrpljene kao posljedice smrti njihovog supruga odnosno oca, one bi se stoga trebale moći koristiti zaštitom koja je dodijeljena ovom direktivom.
Case C‑277/12
Predmet C-277/12
In Latvia, although compensation for pain and psychological suffering caused by the death of the family’s economic provider, a dependant or a spouse may be claimed from the insurer of the person responsible for a road traffic accident, it is limited, however, to LVL 100 (approximately €142) for each applicant and per deceased person.
U Litvi, iako se naknada neimovinske štete za bolove i psihičke patnje uslijed smrti osobe o kojoj netko ovisi, uzdržavanika ili bračnog druga može zahtijevati od osiguravatelja osobe koja je odgovorna za prometnu nezgodu, njezin je iznos ipak ograničen na 100 LVL (gotovo 142 eura) po svakoj osobi koja postavi zahtjev te po svakoj preminuloj osobi.
On 14 February 2006, the parents of Vitālijs Drozdovs died in a road traffic accident in Riga (Latvia).
Roditelji V. Drozdovs preminuli su 14. veljače 2006. u prometnoj nezgodi u Rigi (Litva).
Vitālijs Drozdovs, who is 10 years old , was placed under the supervision of his grandmother, who was also made his legal guardian.
V. Drozdovs, koji je imao deset godina, stavljen je pod skrbništvo svoje bake.
His guardian then requested the insurer of the person responsible for the road traffic accident to pay compensation in the amount of LVL 200 000 (approximately €284 820) for the non‑material damage which her grandson has suffered as a result of the loss of his parents.
Skrbnica je pozvala osiguratelja osobe odgovorne za nezgodu da plati štetu u iznosu 200 000 LVL (gotovo 284 820 eura) na ime naknade neimovinske štete koju je V. Drozdovs pretrpio zbog gubitka svojih roditelja.
The Augstākās tiesas Senāts (Senate of the Supreme Court of Latvia), before which the dispute between Vitālijs Drozdovs and the insurer has been brought, first referred the same question to the Court of Justice as the Slovak court in Haasová and, second, asked whether the limitation under Latvian law on the maximum amount of compensation for non‑material damage suffered as a result of a road traffic accident is compatible with EU law.
Augstākās tiesas Senāts (Opća sjednica Vrhovnog suda, Latvija), koji je odlučivao u postupku između V. Drozdovs i osiguravatelja, je postavio Sudu, s jedne strane, identično pitanje kao i slovački sud u predmetu Haasová i, s druge strane, pitanje o tome je li ograničenje koje latvijsko pravo propisuje u vezi s maksimalnim iznosom naknade neimovinske štete pretrpljene zbog prometne nezgode u skladu s pravom Unije.
Since, according to the information submitted by the national court, Latvian law grants Mr Drozdovs the right to compensation for the non‑material damage which he suffered as a result of the death of his parents, he should thus be able to benefit from the protection afforded by the First Directive.
Međutim, budući da, prema navodima nacionalnog suda, latvijsko pravo V. Drozdovs daje pravo na naknadu neimovinske štete koju je pretrpio kao posljedicu smrti svojih roditelja, on bi se također trebao moći koristiti zaštitom koju pruža Prva direktiva.
The Court also finds that, if a Member State recognises the right to compensation for non‑material damage suffered, it may not provide, for that specific category of damage – which falls under the category of personal injuries for the purposes of the Second Directive – maximum amounts to be guaranteed which are lower than the minimum amounts guaranteed under that directive.
Sud također utvrđuje da ako država članica priznaje pravo na naknadu neimovinske štete ona ne može predvidjeti za ovu specifičnu kategoriju štete, koja spada u štetu zbog tjelesne ozlijede u smislu Druge direktive, maksimalna jamstva koja su niža od minimalnih jamstava propisanih tom direktivom.
The Second Directive neither provides for nor makes a distinction between the damage covered, other than the distinction made between personal injuries and damage to property.
Naime, direktiva ne propisuje niti dozvoljava nikakvo razlikovanje između pokrivenih odgovornosti, osim onog koje je uspostavljeno između tjelesnih ozljeda i oštećenja stvari.
NOTE: A reference for a preliminary ruling allows the courts and tribunals of the Member States, in disputes which have been brought before them, to refer questions to the Court of Justice about the interpretation of European Union law or the validity of a European Union act.
NAPOMENA: Prethodno pitanje omogućuje sudovima država članica da se, u okviru sporova u kojima odlučuju, obrate Sudu u vezi s tumačenjem prava Unije ili valjanosti akta Unije.
The full text of the judgment is published on the CURIA website on the day of delivery.
Cjelovit tekst presude ( C-22/12 i C-277/12 ) objavljuje se na stranici CURIA na dan objave.
Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and to the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability (OJ, English Special Edition 1972 (II), p.
Direktiva Vijeća 72/166/EEZ od 24. travnja 1972. o usklađivanju zakona država članica u odnosu na osiguranje od građanskopravne odgovornosti u pogledu upotrebe motornih vozila i izvršenje obveze osiguranja od takve odgovornosti (SL L 103, str.
360).
1).
Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (OJ 1984 L 8, p.
Direktiva Vijeća 84/5/EEZ od 30. prosinca 1983. o usklađivanju zakona država članica u odnosu na osiguranje od građanskopravne odgovornosti u pogledu upotrebe motornih vozila (SL 1984, L 8, str.
17), as amended by Directive 2005/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 (OJ 2005 L 149, p.
17), izmijenjena Direktivom 2005/14/CE Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 11. svibnja 2005. (SL L 149, str.
Judgment in Case C‑199/12, C-200/12, C-201/12
Presuda u predmetu C-199/12, C-200/12, C-201/12
X, Y, Z v Minister voor Immigratie en Asiel
X, Y, Z / Minister voor Immigratie en Asiel
Homosexual applicants for asylum can constitute a particular social group who may be persecuted on account of their sexual orientation
Homoseksualni tražitelji azila mogu predstavljati određenu društvenu skupinu koja je podložna proganjanju zbog svoje seksualne orijentacije
In that context, the existence of a term of imprisonment in the country of origin sanctioning homosexual acts may constitute an act of persecution per se, provided that it is actually applied.
U tom kontekstu , postojanje kazne zatvora kojom se kažnjavaju homoseksualna djela u državi podrijetla može, samo po sebi, predstavljati djelo proganjanja pod uvjetom da se stvarno primjenjuje
In that context, the acts of persecution must be sufficiently serious by their nature or repetition as to constitute a severe violation of basic human rights.
U tom kontekstu, djela proganjanja moraju biti dovoljno ozbiljna po svojoj prirodi ili ponavljanju da predstavljaju ozbiljno kršenje temeljnih ljudskih prava.
X, Y and Z are nationals of Sierra Leone, Uganda and Senegal respectively.
X, Y i Z su državljani Sierra Leonea, Ugande, odnosno Senegala.
They seek refugee status in the Netherlands, claiming that they have a well-founded fear of being persecuted in their countries of origin by reason of their sexual orientation.
Željeli su dobiti status izbjeglice u Nizozemskoj, navodeći da se s razlogom boje proganjanja u svojim državama podrijetla zbog svoje seksualne orijentacije.
Homosexual acts are a criminal offence in those three countries and may lead to serious punishment, from heavy fines to life imprisonment in certain cases.
Naime, homoseksualna djela predstavljaju kaznena djela u ove tri zemlje i mogu u određenim slučajevima dovesti do teških kazni, od teških prekršaja do doživotnog zatvora.
The Netherlands Raad van State (Council of State, Netherlands), which is hearing the cases at final instance, has asked the Court of Justice about the assessment of applications for refugee status under the provisions of the directive.
Nizozemski Raad van State (Državni savjet, Nizozemska), pred kojim se vode postupci u zadnjem stupnju, postavio je upit Sudu o ocjeni zahtjeva za dobivanje statusa izbjeglice na temelju odredbi Direktive.