natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
32 By its first question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 3(1)(b) of Regulation No 2201/2003 must be interpreted as meaning that, where spouses hold both the nationality of the Member State of the court seised and that of the same other Member State, the court of the State in which proceedings are brought must give precedence to the nationality of the Member State to which it belongs. 
32 Svojim prvim pitanjem Sud koji ga je uputio u biti pita treba li članak 3. stavak 1. točku (b) Uredbe br. 2201/2003 tumačiti tako da, ako bračni drugovi oboje imaju državljanstvo države članice suda pred kojim je pokrenut postupak i državljanstvo iste druge države članice, sud pred kojim je pokrenut postupak mora dati prednost državljanstvu države članice kojoj pripada.
33 As a preliminary point, it should be noted that courts seised in situations such as that in the main proceedings, which are governed by the transitional provisions on recognition laid down in Article 64(4) of Regulation No 2201/2003, are called upon to rule on the jurisdiction of the courts of another Member State. 
33 Uvodno valja napomenuti da su sudovi pred kojima je pokrenut postupak u okolnostima kakve su u glavnom postupku, koje su uređene prijelaznim odredbama o priznavanju utvrđenima u članku 64. stavku 4. Uredbe br. 2201/2003, pozvani da odlučuju o nadležnosti sudova druge države članice.
Such situations differ from those governed more directly by the provisions of Chapter III of that regulation, concerning the recognition and enforcement of judgments, in relation to which Article 24 of the regulation prohibits review of jurisdiction of the court of origin. 
Takve se okolnosti razlikuju od onih koje su izravnije uređene odredbama poglavlja III. navedene uredbe o priznavanju i izvršenju sudskih odluka, za koje se u članku 24. uredbe zabranjuje preispitivanje nadležnosti suda podrijetla.
34 According to the documents before the court, in the judgment which is being contested in the main proceedings, the Paris Court of Appeal held that the jurisdiction of Pest Court, to the extent that this was founded on Mr Hadadi's Hungarian nationality, a ground of jurisdiction not recognised by the French rules on international jurisdiction, was `in reality very flimsy', whereas the jurisdiction of the courts where the marital home is situated, that is France, was by comparison `particularly clear'. 
34 Iz sudskog je spisa razvidno da je Cour d'appel de Paris smatrao da je, u presudi koja se osporava u glavnom postupku, nadležnost Suda u Pešti, u mjeri u kojoj se temeljila na mađarskom državljanstvu L. Hadadija, osnovi za nadležnost koja se ne priznaje u francuskim pravilima o međunarodnoj nadležnosti, „u stvarnosti vrlo slaba", dok je nadležnost sudova mjesta zajedničkog boravišta bračnih drugova, to jest Francuske, u usporedbi s tim „vrlo jasna".
35 According to the Commission of the European Communities, the first question referred for a preliminary ruling has been posed because, where there is a conflict between French nationality and another nationality, French courts tend `most often to give precedence to the nationality of the State of the court seised'. 
35 Prema mišljenju Komisije Europskih zajednica, prvo prethodno pitanje postavljeno je zato što, ako postoji sukob između francuskog i nekog drugog državljanstva, francuski sudovi običavaju „najčešće dati prednost državljanstvu države suda pred kojim je postupak pokrenut".
36 That view is confirmed by the argument submitted to the Court by Ms Mesko, who contends that Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2201/2003 does not contain any specific provisions governing the case of dual nationality, with the result that each Member State applies its own nationality law in this type of situation. 
36 Taj stav potvrđuje i argument koji je Sudu podnijela C. M. Mesko, koja tvrdi da članak 3. stavka 1. Uredbe br. 2201/2003 ne sadržava nikakvu posebnu odredbu kojom se uređuje slučaj dvojnog državljanstva, tako da u toj vrsti okolnosti svaka država članica primjenjuje vlastito pravo u području državljanstva.
According to Ms Mesko, it follows from French academic writing and case-law that, in case of conflicting nationalities, if one of them is the nationality of the State of the court seised, it will prevail. 
Prema C. M. Mesko, iz francuske doktrine i sudske prakse proizlazi da, u slučaju sukoba državljanstava, ako je jedno od njih državljanstvo države suda pred kojim je pokrenut postupak, prednost će imati to državljanstvo.
37 In those circumstances, the question arises whether, given that, as Ms Mesko points out, Regulation No 2201/2003 does not deal expressly with the case of spouses having the same dual nationality, Article 3(1) of the regulation must be interpreted in one way where the two spouses have the same two nationalities in common and another way where they have only the same, single, nationality. 
37 U tim okolnostima postavlja se pitanje, treba li, s obzirom na to da, kako ističe C. M. Mesko, Uredbom br. 2201/2003 nije izričito uređen slučaj bračnih drugova s istim dvojnim državljanstvom, članak 3. stavak 1. Uredbe tumačiti na jedan način ako dvoje bračnih drugova imaju dva ista državljanstva, a na drugi način ako imaju samo jedno isto državljanstvo.
38 According to settled case-law, it follows from the need for uniform application of Community law and from the principle of equality that the terms of a provision of Community law which makes no express reference to the law of the Member States for the purpose of determining its meaning and scope must normally be given an autonomous and uniform interpretation throughout the Community, having regard to the context of the provision and the objective pursued by the legislation in question (see, in relation to Regulation No 2201/2003, Case C-523/07 A [2009] ECR I-0000, paragraph 34). 
38 Prema ustaljenoj sudskoj praksi, iz zahtjeva za ujednačenu primjenu prava Zajednice kao i načela jednakosti proizlazi da se pojmovi iz odredbe prava Zajednice koja ne sadržava nikakvo izričito upućivanje na pravo država članica za utvrđivanje njegovog smisla i dosega u cijeloj Zajednici trebaju tumačiti na autonoman i ujednačen način, uzimajući u obzir kontekst odredbe i cilj koji se nastoji postići propisom o kojemu je riječ (vidjeti, u vezi s Uredbom br. 2201/2003, presudu od 2. travnja 2009., A, C-523/07, Zb., str. I-2805.,t. 34.).
39 In that regard, it should be pointed out that Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2201/2003 does not make any express reference to the law of the Member States for the purpose of determining the exact scope of the `nationality' ground of jurisdiction. 
39 U vezi s tim valja istaknuti da se u članku 3. stavku 1. Uredbe br. 2201/2003 ne upućuje izravno na pravo države članice za potrebe određivanja točnog područja primjene kriterija za nadležnost koji se odnosi na „državljanstvo".
40 Moreover, Regulation No 2201/2003 does not appear, at least in principle, to make a distinction according to whether a person holds one or, as the case may be, several nationalities. 
40 Štoviše, u Uredbi br. 2201/2003 se, barem u načelu, ne pravi razlika prema tome ima li neka osoba jedno državljanstvo ili, ovisno o slučaju, nekoliko državljanstava.
41 Accordingly, where the spouses have the same dual nationality, the court seised cannot overlook the fact that the individuals concerned hold the nationality of another Member State, with the result that persons with the same dual nationality are treated as if they had only the nationality of the Member State of the court seised. 
41 Stoga, ako bračni drugovi imaju isto dvojno državljanstvo, sud pred kojim je pokrenut postupak ne može zanemariti činjenicu da predmetni pojedinci imaju državljanstvo druge države članice, pri čemu se s osobama s istim dvojnim državljanstvom postupa kao da imaju samo državljanstvo države članice suda pred kojim je pokrenut postupak.
That would have the effect of precluding such persons, in the context of the transitional rule of recognition referred to in Article 64(4) of Regulation No 2201/2003, from relying on Article 3(1)(b) of that regulation before a court of the Member State addressed in order to establish the jurisdiction of the courts of another Member State, even though those persons hold the nationality of the latter State. 
Posljedica toga bi naime bila isključivanje takvih osoba, u kontekstu prijelaznog pravila priznavanja iz članka 64. stavka 4. Uredbe br. 2201/2003, od pozivanja na članak 3. stavak 1. točku (b) navedene uredbe pred sudom zamoljene države članice u svrhu utvrđivanja nadležnosti sudova druge države članice, čak i ako te osobe imaju državljanstvo potonje države.
42 On the contrary, in the context of Article 64(4) of the regulation, where the spouses hold both the nationality of the Member State of the court seised and that of the same other Member State, that court must take into account the fact that the courts of that other Member State could, since the persons concerned hold the nationality of the latter State, properly have been seised of the case under Article 3(1)(b) of Regulation No 2201/2003. 
42 Suprotno tome, u kontekstu članka 64. stavka 4. Uredbe, ako bračni drugovi imaju i državljanstvo države članice suda pred kojim je pokrenut postupak i državljanstvo iste druge države članice, taj sud mora uzeti u obzir činjenicu da je postupak mogao, na temelju članka 3. stavka 1. točke (b) Uredbe br. 2201/2003, uredno biti pokrenut pred sudovima te druge države članice budući da predmetne osobe imaju državljanstvo potonje države.
43 Consequently, the answer to the first question is that, where the court of the Member State addressed must verify, pursuant to Article 64(4) of Regulation No 2201/2003, whether the court of the Member State of origin of a judgment would have had jurisdiction under Article 3(1)(b) of that regulation, the latter provision precludes the court of the Member State addressed from regarding spouses who each hold the nationality both of that State and of the Member State of origin as nationals only of the Member State addressed. 
43 Stoga na prvo pitanje valja odgovoriti da, ako sud zamoljene države članice mora provjeriti, na temelju članka 64. stavka 4. Uredbe br. 2201/2003, je li sud države članice podrijetla sudske odluke mogao biti nadležan na temelju članka 3. stavka 1. točke (b) navedene uredbe, potonja odredba isključuje mogućnost da sud zamoljene države članice bračne drugove s državljanstvom te države i države članice podrijetla smatra državljanima samo zamoljene države članice.
That court must, on the contrary, take into account the fact that the spouses also hold the nationality of the Member State of origin and that, therefore, the courts of the latter could have had jurisdiction to hear the case. 
Suprotno tome, taj sud mora uzeti u obzir činjenicu da su bračni drugovi isto tako državljani države članice podrijetla i da bi stoga sudovi te države mogli biti nadležni za postupanje u sporu.
The second and third questions 
Drugo i treće pitanje
44 By its second and third questions, which it is appropriate to examine together, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 3(1)(b) of Regulation No 2201/2003 must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to determine the court which has jurisdiction in respect of the divorce of persons having the same dual nationality, only the nationality of the Member State with which those persons have the closest links - the `most effective' nationality - is to be taken into account, so that the courts of that State alone have jurisdiction on the basis of nationality (second question), or whether, on the contrary, both nationalities are to be taken into account, so that the courts of those two Member States can have jurisdiction on that basis, allowing the persons concerned to choose the Member State in which to bring proceedings (third question). 
44 Drugim i trećim pitanjem, koje valja razmotriti zajedno, sud koji je uputio zahtjev u biti pita treba li članak 3. stavak 1. točku (b) Uredbe br. 2201/2003 tumačiti tako da, prilikom određivanja suda koji je nadležan za razvod braka osoba s istim dvojnim državljanstvom, u obzir treba uzeti samo državljanstvo države članice s kojom te osobe imaju najbližu vezu, odnosno „najefektivnije" državljanstvo, kako bi samo sudovi te države bili nadležni na temelju državljanstva (drugo pitanje) ili, suprotno, treba li uzeti o obzir oba državljanstva, kako bi sudovi tih dviju država članica bili nadležni na toj osnovi, čime se predmetnim osobama omogućuje da odaberu državu članicu u kojoj će pokrenuti postupak (treće pitanje).
45 Ms Mesko and the Polish Government argue that, where the spouses have the same dual nationality, the ground of jurisdiction of the more effective nationality should be applied. 
45 C. M. Mesko i poljska vlada tvrde da, ako bračni drugovi imaju isto dvojno državljanstvo, kao kriterij za nadležnost treba primijeniti efektivnije državljanstvo.
In that regard, Ms Mesko, relying on various factors, in particular the fact that she and Mr Hadadi have been residing in France since 1980, considers that, in the case in the main proceedings, French nationality is the more effective. 
U vezi s tim, pozivajući se na različite čimbenike, osobito činjenicu da ona i L. Hadadi borave u Francuskoj od 1980., C. M. Mesko smatra da je, u glavnom postupku, francusko državljanstvo efektivnije.
She submits that, if both nationalities were put on the same footing, that would trigger a `rush to the courts', encouraging abuse of the system, with one spouse hurrying to seise the courts of one Member State in order to prevent the other spouse from instituting proceedings before the courts of another Member State. 
Ona navodi da bi se izjednačavanjem oba državljanstva potaknula „navala na sudove" i zlouporaba sustava kada bi jedan bračni drug požurio pokrenuti postupak pred sudovima jedne države članice kako bi spriječio drugog bračnog druga da pokrene postupak pred sudovima druge države članice.
The Polish Government considers that the choice of the court having jurisdiction should not be left to the parties, because such a solution would accord an excessive privilege to persons holding the same dual nationality and allow them the possibility de facto of choosing the court having jurisdiction, whereas Regulation No 2201/2003 does not grant the same option to others. 
Poljska vlada smatra da odabir nadležnog suda ne bi trebalo prepustiti strankama, jer bi se takvim rješenjem dodijelila prevelika povlastica osobama s dvojnim državljanstvom i omogućilo da de facto odaberu nadležni sud, dok se Uredbom br. 2201/2003 ista mogućnost ne dodjeljuje drugima.
In addition, according to that government, upholding the jurisdiction of the courts of a Member State in which the spouses had not lived for a long time would undermine the effectiveness and fairness of court judgments and lead to certain abuses, such as `forum shopping'. 
Osim toga, stajalište je te vlade da bi se nadležnošću sudova države članice u kojoj bračni drugovi nisu živjeli dugo vremena narušila učinkovitost i pravednost sudskih presuda i dovelo do određenih zlouporaba, kao što je „forum shopping".
46 By contrast, according to Mr Hadadi, the French, Czech, German, Hungarian, Slovak and Finnish Governments, as well as the Commission, where the same dual nationality is held, each of the spouses is entitled, under Article 3(1)(b) of Regulation No 2201/2003, to institute divorce proceedings before the courts of either of the two Member States of which he or she and the other spouse hold the nationality. 
46 Suprotno tome, stajalište L. Hadadija, francuske, češke, njemačke, mađarske, slovačke i finske vlade, kao i Komisije je da, ako bračni drugovi imaju dvojno državljanstvo, svaki od njih ima pravo na temelju članka 3. stavka 1. točke (b) Uredbe br. 2201/2003 podnijeti tužbu za razvod braka pred sudovima bilo koje od dvije države članice čije državljanstvo imaju bračni drugovi.
47 In that regard, it should be noted at the outset that, according to recital 1 in the preamble to Regulation No 2201/2003, that regulation is to contribute to creating an area of freedom, security and justice, in which the free movement of persons is ensured. 
47 U vezi s tim na početku valja napomenuti da, prema uvodnoj izjavi 1. Uredbe br. 2201/2003, ta Uredba treba doprinijeti uspostavi područja slobode, sigurnosti i pravde u kojemu je osigurano slobodno kretanje osoba.
To that end, Chapters II and III of the regulation lay down rules on jurisdiction and on recognition and enforcement of judgments concerning the dissolution of matrimonial ties. 
U tu se svrhu poglavljima II. i III. navedene uredbe utvrđuju pravila o nadležnosti te o priznavanju i izvršenju sudskih odluka o raskidu bračne veze.
48 In that context, Article 3(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation No 2201/2003 provides for a number of grounds of jurisdiction, without establishing any hierarchy. 
48 U tom kontekstu člankom 3. stavkom 1. točkama (a) i (b) Uredbe br. 2201/2003 predviđa se niz osnova za nadležnost, bez određivanja hijerarhije.
All the objective grounds set out in Article 3(1) are alternatives. 
Svi objektivni kriteriji utvrđeni u članku 3. stavku 1. su alternativni.
Taking into account that regulation's purpose of ensuring legal certainty, Article 6 thereof provides, in substance, that the grounds of jurisdiction contained in Articles 3 to 5 of the regulation are exclusive in nature. 
Uzimajući o obzir da je svrha navedene uredbe osiguravanje pravne sigurnosti, člankom 6. uredbe propisuje se, u biti, da su osnove za nadležnost sadržane u člancima 3. do 5. uredbe po prirodi isključive.
49 It follows that the system of jurisdiction established by Regulation No 2201/2003 concerning the dissolution of matrimonial ties is not intended to preclude the courts of several States from having jurisdiction. 
49 Iz toga slijedi da namjera sustava dijeljenja nadležnosti uspostavljenog Uredbom br. 2201/2003 u području raskida bračne veze nije isključenje višestruke nadležnosti.
Rather, the coexistence of several courts having jurisdiction is expressly provided for, without any hierarchy being established between them. 
Naprotiv, izričito je predviđeno istodobno postojanje više nadležnih sudova, bez uspostavljanja bilo kakve hijerarhije među njima.
50 In that regard, while the grounds of jurisdiction listed in Article 3(1)(a) of that regulation are based in various respects on the habitual residence of the spouses, that in Article 3(1)(b) is `the nationality of both spouses or, in the case of the United Kingdom and Ireland, the "domicile" of both spouses'. 
50 U vezi s tim, dok se kriteriji navedeni u članku 3. stavku 1. točki (a) navedene uredbe temelje na različitim aspektima uobičajenog boravišta bračnih drugova, kriterij iz članka 3. stavka 1. točke (b) utvrđen je „prema državljanstvu oba bračna druga ili, u slučaju Velike Britanije ili Irske, prema ,domicile' oba bračna druga".
Thus, except in relation to the latter two Member States, the courts of the other Member States of which the spouses hold the nationality have jurisdiction in proceedings relating to the dissolution of matrimonial ties. 
Stoga, osim u slučaju potonje dvije države članice, sudovi ostalih država članica, čije državljanstvo bračni drugovi imaju, nadležni su u postupcima koji se odnose na raskid bračne veze.
51 However, there is nothing in the wording of Article 3(1)(b) to suggest that only the `effective' nationality can be taken into account in applying that provision. 
51 Međutim, ništa u tekstu članka 3. stavka 1. točke (b) ne upućuje na to da se u primjeni te odredbe u obzir može uzeti samo „efektivno" državljanstvo.
Article 3(1)(b), inasmuch as it makes nationality a ground of jurisdiction, endorses a link that is unambiguous and easy to apply. 
U članku 3. stavku 1. točki (b), u mjeri u kojoj se u njemu državljanstvo određuje kao kriterij za nadležnost, daje se prednost nedvojbenoj povezanosti koju je lako primijeniti.
It does not provide for any other criterion relating to nationality such as, for example, how effective it is. 
Ne predviđaju se nikakvi drugi kriteriji u vezi s državljanstvom, kao što je, na primjer, njegova efektivnost.
52 Moreover, no basis can be found in the objectives of that provision or in the context of which it forms part for an interpretation according to which only an `effective' nationality can be taken into consideration for the purposes of Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2201/2003. 
52 Štoviše, tumačenje prema kojem se samo „efektivno" državljanstvo može uzeti u obzir za potrebe članka 3. stavka 1. Uredbe br. 2201/2003 nije moguće utemeljiti ciljevima te odredbe ili kontekstom u kojem se ona nalazi.
53 First, such an interpretation would restrict individuals' choice of the court having jurisdiction, particularly in cases where the right to freedom of movement for persons had been exercised. 
53 Prvo, tim bi tumačenjem ograničio pojedinčev odabir nadležnog suda, osobito u slučajevima ostvarivanja prava na slobodno kretanje osoba.
54 In particular, since habitual residence would be an essential consideration for the purpose of determining the most effective nationality, the grounds of jurisdiction provided for in Article 3(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation No 2201/2203 would frequently overlap. 
54 Konkretnije, budući da bi uobičajeno boravište bilo ključno za određivanje najefektivnijeg državljanstva, osnove za državljanstvo predviđene u članku 3. stavku 1. točkama (a) i (b) Uredbe br. 2201/2003 često bi se preklapale.
On the facts, that would amount to establishing, with regard to persons holding a number of nationalities, a hierarchy between the grounds of jurisdiction laid down in Article 3(1), for which there is no basis in the wording of that paragraph. 
U slučaju osoba s dvojnim državljanstvom to bi de facto dovelo do uspostavljanja hijerarhije među osnovama za nadležnost utvrđenima u članku 3. stavku 1., za što nema temelja u tekstu tog stavka.
By contrast, a couple holding only the nationality of one Member State would always be able to seise the courts of that State, even if they had not had their habitual residence in that Member State for many years and even if they had few real links with that State. 
Suprotno tome, bračni drugovi s državljanstvom samo jedne države članice uvijek bi mogli pokrenuti postupak pred sudovima te države, čak i ako mnogo godina ne bi imali uobičajeno boravište u toj državi članici te čak i ako bi imali malo stvarnih veza s tom državom.
55 Secondly, in the light of the imprecise nature of the concept of `effective nationality', a whole set of factors would have to be taken into consideration, not always leading to a clear result. 
55 Drugo, s obzirom na nepreciznost pojma „efektivno državljanstvo", u obzir bi trebalo uzeti čitav niz čimbenika, koji ne bi uvijek dovodili do jasnog rezultata.
The need to check the links between the spouses and their respective nationalities would make verification of jurisdiction more onerous and thus be at odds with the objective of facilitating the application of Regulation No 2201/2003 by the use of a simple and unambiguous connecting factor. 
Potreba za provjerom povezanosti između bračnih drugova i njihovih državljanstava učinila bi provjeru nadležnosti zahtjevnijom, što bi bilo u suprotnosti s ciljem olakšavanja primjene Uredbe br. 2201/2003 primjenom kriterija jednostavne i nedvojbene povezanosti.
56 It is true that, pursuant to Article 3(1)(b) of Regulation No 2201/2003, the courts of a number of Member States can have jurisdiction where the individuals in question hold several nationalities. 
56 Točno je da na temelju članka 3. stavka 1. točke (b) Uredbe br. 2201/2003 mogu biti nadležni sudovi više država članica ako predmetni pojedinci imaju nekoliko državljanstava.
However, as the Commission and the French, Hungarian and Slovak Governments pointed out, were the courts of several Member States to be seised pursuant to that provision, the conflict of jurisdiction could be resolved by applying the rule laid down in Article 19(1) of that regulation. 
Međutim, kako su istaknuli Komisija te francuska, mađarska i slovačka vlada, da je na temelju te odredbe pokrenut postupak pred sudovima nekoliko država članica, sukob nadležnosti mogao bi se riješiti primjenom pravila utvrđenog u članku 19. stavku 1. navedene uredbe.