natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In Croatian justice, however, there are some other if less obvious and less quantifiable dysfunctions, from lack of experience and knowledge in trials that result in poor-quality results to difficulties with the possibility of providing unbiased and just adjudication for some categories of parties and types of cases. 
U hrvatskom pravosuđu postoje, međutim, i druge, manje očite i manje mjerljive disfunkcionalnosti, od nedostatka iskustva i znanja u suđenju, koje rezultira odlukama slabe kvalitete, do teškoća s mogućnošću osiguranja nepristranoga i pravičnog suđenja za pojedine kategorije stranaka i tipove slučajeva.
Nevertheless, the problem of providing for fair trials in reasonable time has, at the beginning of the third millennium, come to the surface as the most concrete and most striking problem on the way to creating a state of law and order, and the rule of law. 
Ipak, problem osiguranja suđenja u razumnom roku na početku trećega tisućljeća isplivao je na površinu kao najkonkretniji i najeklatantniji problem na putu punog ostvarenja pravne države i vladavine prava.
The EU enlargement process assumes the inclusion of new states that have to the greatest extent overcome the difficulties of the transition, among which is the creation of an effective system for the protection of rights granted to citizens. 
Proces proširenja članstva u EU pretpostavlja uključivanje novih država koje su u najvećoj mjeri prevladale tranzicijske teškoće, među kojima je i ostvarenje učinkovitog sustava zaštite ljudskih i građanskih prava.
A functioning judiciary is a precondition for the accomplishment of the political and legal ideals on which the EU is based - the ideals of the rule of law. 
Funkcionirajuće pravosuđe pretpostavka je za ostvarenje političkih i pravnih ideala na kojima se temelji i EU - ideala pravne države i vladavine prava.
As community of not only economic but also political and cultural values, the EU assumes that its member states have the ability to implement proclaimed political views, and that the rights granted by the law of the Community can, if necessary, be effectively protected in the courts of the member states. 
Kao zajednica ne samo ekonomskih, već i političkih i kulturnih vrijednosti, EU pretpostavlja da se deklarirana politička stajališta provode u djelo, i da se supstancijalna prava što ih pravo Zajednice priznaje građanima EU-a mogu, ako ustreba, efikasno ostvariti sudskim putem.
Since the harmonisation of EU law is based on the principle that the legal instruments of the Community are by and large being implemented by the national courts, the functioning of these courts is a sine qua non for the functioning of the legal system of the Community in the territories of the new members. 
Kako je usklađivanje prava u EU utemeljeno na načelu da pravne akte Zajednice uglavnom provode u djelo nacionalni sudovi, funkcioniranje upravo tih sudova postaje conditio sine qua non da bi se uopće moglo govoriti o mogućnosti funkcioniranja pravnog poretka Zajednice na teritoriju novih članica.
THE ROLE OF NATIONAL JUDICATURES 
ULOGA NACIONALNOG PRAVOSUĐA U OSTVARENJU UVJETA ZA PRIDRUŽIVANJE
Although the EU is increasingly taking on characteristics that, if it were not for certain resistances and historical sensitivities, could well publicly be labelled as “federalism”, its legal order is to a great extent put into life through the national institutions, primarily the national courts. 
Premda EU sve više poprima obilježja koja bi se, da nema nekih otpora i povijesnih osjetljivosti, i javno mogla nazivati federalizmom, njezin se pravni poredak pretežito ostvaruje putem nacionalnih institucija, prije svega u nacionalnim sudovima.
Integration processes in the EU so far have not negated specific features of organisation and procedure of national justice systems. 
Integracijski procesi u EU nisu do sada negirali organizacijske i procesne specifičnosti.
In principle, national procedural autonomy has been acknowledged for each state - that is, the right to organise its own judicial system in the manner it considers most appropriate. 
U načelu, svakoj se državi do sada priznavala nacionalna procesna autonomija - pravo da organizira svoj pravosudni sustav na način na koji smatra najprikladnijim.
The importance of harmonisation at the level of the results of procedures, irrespective of the organisational and procedural differences of the national systems, is heightened by the fact that all the countries of the Union participate in a universal system of reciprocal recognition of judgements and other final decisions made in other member states, so that a judgment made in Lisbon can without any double-check be simply acknowledged in Berlin as a judgement of value equal to those of the German courts and vice versa. 
Važnost usklađivanja na razini rezultata postupaka, i bez obzira na organizacijske i proceduralne razlike nacionalnih sustava, potencirana je činjenicom da su sve zemlje Unije obuhvaćene univerzalnim sustavom uzajamnog priznavanja presuda i drugih odluka donesenih u drugim državama članicama EU-a, tako da presuda donesena u Lisabonu može bez preispitivanja njezine ispravnosti biti jednostavno priznata u Berlinu kao presuda jednakovrijedna presudama njemačkih sudova i vice versa.
In addition, every EU citizen has to be provided with a roughly equal level of protection of his rights wherever he or she might happen to be in the EU, irrespective of which court it is that is determining his or her rights. 
K tome, svakom građaninu EU-a potrebno je omogućiti načelno jednaku razinu pravne zaštite gdje god se nalazio u EU, bez obzira na to koji sud odlučivao o njegovim pravima.
For this reason, one of the postulates of European integration is that in all the countries of the EU an equal or maximally equivalent degree of protection of subjective rights should gradually be attained. 
Stoga je jedan od postulata europskih integracija to da se u svim zemljama EU-a postupno ostvari jednaka (ili maksimalno ekvivalentna) razina zaštite subjektivnih prava.
As for countries with aspirations to be EU members, the question of the capacity and effectiveness of the judiciary appears additionally at a much more elementary level - at the level of meeting the basic political criteria that demand future members to be stable democracies with institutions capable of guaranteeing fundamental human rights and putting into effect the principle of the rule of law. 
U odnosu prema zemljama koje računaju na buduće članstvo u EU, pitanje sposobnosti i djelotvornosti pravosudnog sustava pojavljuje se dodatno i na mnogo elementarnijoj razini - na razini udovoljavanja temeljnim političkim kriterijima koji zahtijevaju da buduće članice imaju stabilne demokracije čije institucije mogu zajamčiti temeljna ljudska prava i u djelo provesti načelo vladavine prava.
Thus in the process of the accession of those countries that will join the EU in the first wave, an important role was assigned to the reform of their judiciaries, and at the local and the international level their progress in the creation of a competent and independent judiciary was monitored most attentively. 
Tako je u procesu pridruživanja onih zemalja koje će u prvome valu pristupiti EU važna uloga bila pridana reformi pravosudnih sustava, a na lokalnoj i međunarodnoj razini pozorno se pratio njihov napredak u ostvarenju kompetentnoga i neovisnog pravosuđa.
One of the indicators of the degree of the readiness of national judicial institutions for full membership is contained in the practice of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg with respect to the candidate countries. 
Jedan od pokazatelja stupnja spremnosti nacionalnih pravosudnih institucija za punopravno članstvo sadržan je i u praksi Europskog suda za ljudska prava u Strasbourgu (ESLJP) u odnosu prema državama kandidatkinjama.
As a kind of political entrance lobby to further integration, the Council of Europe (CoE) has so far covered practically all the potential candidates for membership in the future, and the jurisdiction of the ECHR for individual applications with respect to CoE members has enabled a comparison, among other things, of the level of protection of human rights that is attained by the national judiciaries. 
Naime, kao svojevrsno političko predvorje za daljnje integracije, Vijeće Europe (VE) do sada je obuhvatilo praktički sve potencijalne kandidate za članstvo u EU u budućnosti, a jurisdikcija ESLJP-a i pravo na individualne zahtjeve u odnosu prema članicama VE-a omogućili su usporedbu, između ostaloga, i razine zaštite ljudskih prava koje ostvaruju njihovi nacionalni pravosudni sustavi.
To the political importance of the practice of the ECHR in the future another, strictly legal element may be added, for the EU is seriously considering the possibility of acceding to the European Convention as a separate entity. 
Političkoj važnosti prakse ESLJP-a može se u budućnosti pridodati i strogo pravni element, jer EU ozbiljno razmatra mogućnost da kao zasebni entitet pristupi EK-u.
In any event, the integration process even within the current membership of the EU is increasing the importance of having a highly competent and effective judicial system. 
U svakom slučaju, integracijski procesi i unutar sadašnjeg članstva EU-a sve više potenciraju važnost kvalitetnog i učinkovitog pravosuđa.
With the Amsterdam Treaty of 1999, home and justice affairs were shifted from the third to the first pillar of the Union, that is, into an area that is of immediate concern to the Union. 
Ugovorom iz Amsterdama iz 1999. godine građansko je pravosuđe (home and justice affairs) prebačeno iz trećega u prvi stup Unije, dakle u područje koje je od izravnog interesa Unije.
Implementing this shift, the Tampere Summit of 1999 provided for concrete measures by which the EU should be made “an area of liberty, security and justice” by May 2004. 
Radi provedbe takvog opredjeljenja, samit održan u Tampereu u listopadu 1999. godine predvidio je konkretne mjere koje bi EU trebale do svibnja 2004. godine učiniti “područjem slobode, sigurnosti i pravde”.
Cooperation in the area of home and justice affairs is thus made a matter of common European concern, and the political priorities have set the deadlines for harmonisation that will run out in the not very far future. 
Suradnja na području građanskog pravosuđa time je europeizirana, a politički su prioriteti postavili i rokove za usklađivanje koji će isteći u ne tako dalekoj budućnosti.
THE LENGTH OF COURT PROCEEDINGS IN CROATIA 
DUGOTRAJNOST SUDSKIH POSTUPAKA U HRVATSKOJ
As candidate country for EU membership, Croatia too will have to attend very carefully to the challenges of harmonisation in the judicial area. 
Kao kandidatkinja za članstvo u EU, i Hrvatska će se morati vrlo pozorno pozabaviti izazovima usklađivanja u području pravosuđa.
It is beyond any doubt that the administration of justice in Croatia is currently burdened with a series of grave problems. 
Potpuno je nesporno da je sustav pravosuđa u Hrvatskoj opterećen nizom teških problema.
In this paper we shall deal in particular with the problem of the length of judicial proceedings that, in spite of all the other problems, has assumed a highly prominent position. 
U ovom radu posebno ćemo se baviti dugotrajnošću sudskih postupaka koja je uz sve ostale probleme iskočila u prvi plan.
The reasons for taking up the topic of the length of judicial proceedings in public discourse were completely independent of the process of joining the EU, motivated in the first place by a number of inherent reasons and incentives, the most obvious of which we shall give in succinct form. 
Indikativno je da su razlozi tematiziranja trajanja sudskih postupaka u javnom diskursu bili razmatrani posve neovisno o procesu pridruživanja EU, motivirani ponajprije nizom intrinzičnih razloga i poticaja, od kojih u sažetom obliku navodimo samo neke najočitije.
Several sets of judicial statistics published in the nineties indicated that the number of unsettled cases, alongside a constant influx, had more than doubled. 
Više pravosudnih statistika objavljenih u devedesetima pokazalo je da se broj neriješenih slučajeva, uz konstantan priljev novih, više nego udvostručio.
Putting the duration of procedures at the centre of interest not only may easily create an appearance of serious reform, but can also serve as argument for redistribution of the social product to the benefit of some classes (by claiming larger investments in the judiciary, particularly in the wages of judges and the quantitative enlargement of judiciary personnel). 
Stavljanje trajanja postupaka u središte pozornosti ne samo što lako može stvoriti privid ozbiljne reforme, nego može poslužiti kao argument za preraspodjelu društvenog proizvoda u korist pojedinih klasa (inzistiranje na ulaganja u pravosuđe, posebno na ulaganje u plaće sudaca i kvantitativno povećavanje pravosudnog osoblja).
This brief catalogue of arguments shows that the current public interest in the problems of length of court proceedings is in essence somewhat superficial. 
Ovaj kratak katalog argumenata pokazuje da je trenutačni javni interes za probleme dugotrajnosti postupaka u biti donekle površan.
This will also be shown by the analysis in this paper, by pointing out that the reforms that are undertaken are only partial, and the will to put them into effect is questionable at the very least, even among those who consider themselves inveterate reformists. 
To će pokazati i analiza u ovom radu time što će uputiti na činjenicu da su i reforme koje se poduzimaju tek polovične, a volja za njihovo provođenje upitna, čak i među onima koji se smatraju zagriženim reformistima.
The fundamental problems of the lack of efficiency in the justice system - setting up a political system in which the citizens will have confidence in the judiciary as warrant for their personal, political and economic rightsix are mainly absent from discussions about accelerating judicial proceedings. 
Temeljni problemi neefikasnosti pravosuđa - uspostavljanje političkog sustava u kojemu građani imaju povjerenja u sudstvo kao jamac njihovih osobnih, političkih i ekonomskih prava”1 - u diskusijama o ubrzanju postupka uglavnom izostaju.
But irrespective of this, the length of proceedings is a serious problem, which we shall deal with in this paper, while other judicial problems in the creation of the rule of law will be touched on only incidentally. 
No bez obzira na to, trajanje postupaka ozbiljan je problem kojim ćemo se pozabaviti u nastavku ovoga teksta, dok će drugi pravosudni problemi u ostvarenju načela vladavine prava ovom prilikom tek uzgredno biti dotaknuti.
COMPARISON OF THE JUDICIAL SYSTEMS 
USPOREDBA PRAVOSUDNIH SUSTAVA
It is no easy matter to compare judiciaries in terms of their level of efficiency and quality. 
Uspoređivati pravosudne sustave prema njihovoj razini efikasnosti i kvalitete nije jednostavan zadatak.
Because of the already mentioned national procedural autonomy both within and without the EU, organisation, competence and procedural rules of courts show such a degree of diversity that it is almost impossible to subject them to a simple methodology of comparison. 
Zbog već spomenute nacionalne procesne autonomije i unutar EU-a i izvan njega, organizacija, djelokrug i procesna pravila sudova iskazuju toliki stupanj različitosti da ih je gotovo nemoguće podvrgnuti jedinstvenoj metodologiji usporedbe.
Judicial statistics are adjusted to national specificities, and it is therefore very difficult to compare them even if they relate to countries of the same legal and cultural sphere. 
Pravosudne statistike prilagođene su nacionalnim posebnostima, pa ih je vrlo teško smisleno uspoređivati čak i ako se odnose na zemlje istoga pravnog i kulturnog kruga.
As a result, only an indirect assessment of the current situation is possible, from some indirect indicators and isolated examples. 
Stoga se može reći da je prosudba aktualnog stanja moguća tek na posredan način, iz pojedinih neizravnih pokazatelja i izoliranih primjera.
For this reason, such an assessment is necessarily subjective, and may become the subject of political appraisal and political negotiations. 
Ona je stoga nužno subjektivna, te utoliko lakše postaje i predmet političke ocjene, pa i političkih pregovora.
At a professional level, it is broadly accepted that, at the beginning of the third millennium, the degree of harmonisation of the procedural rules and the organisation of the judiciary even with respect to the current members of the EU is at a fairly low level. 
Na stručnoj razini nesporno je da je i na početku trećeg tisućljeća stupanj usklađivanja procesnih pravila i pravosudnog djelovanja i u odnosu prema sadašnjim članicama EU-a još uvijek razmjerno nizak.
The harmonisation of procedures - for the moment only at the level of rapprochement - is achieved only indirectly and in marginal areas. 
Usklađivanje procesa - za sada tek na razini tendencijskog približavanja - postiže se tek neizravno i na marginalnim područjima.
Admittedly, the Amsterdam Treaty has transferred cooperation in the area of justice and home affairs from the third to the first pillar of the Community, stressing the need for uniformity in the EU as area of “liberty, security and justice”. 
Ugovorom iz Amsterdama suradnja na području građanskog pravosuđa prenesena je, doduše, iz trećega u prvi stup Zajednice, čime je naglašena potreba za uniformnošću područja EU-a kao područja “slobode, sigurnosti i pravde”.
However, the aspiration towards uniform standards has so far been limited to the area of the mutual recognition and execution of judicial decisions, i.e., to facilitating the access to the court for those EU citizens that are in the territory of other members, with the ultimate intention that every EU citizen can have equal access to bodies of state power everywhere in Europe, as if it were to do with his or her own national bodies. 
Međutim, težnja za jedinstvenim standardima do sada se zadržavala na području uzajamnog izvršavanja sudskih odluka, tj. na olakšanju pristupu sudu građanima EU-a koji se nalaze na teritoriju drugih članica, s namjerom da konačno svaki građanin EU-a može jednako lako doprijeti do tijela vlasti bilo gdje u Europi kao da je riječ o njegovim vlastitim, nacionalnim tijelima.
With all these activities, judicial practice, procedural style and in particular the degree of efficiency of the machinery of justice are all still very different in the countries of the EU. 
Uza sve te aktivnosti, pravosudna praksa, procesni stil, a posebno i stupanj učinkovitosti pravosudnog aparata, i dalje su vrlo divergentni u zemljama EU-a.
If we stick only to a general evaluation of the speed and user-friendliness of procedures, extremes can be found in the EU as well, from the rapid and simple procedure in e.g. Germany to the complex and lengthy procedures of Italy. 
Ako se zadržimo samo na općoj ocjeni brzine i jednostavnosti postupka, mogu se i u EU pronaći krajnosti, od brzoga i jednostavnog postupka npr. u Njemačkoj, do složenoga i dugotrajnog postupka u Italiji.
In particular with regard to Italy, the problem of length of court proceedings is still far from being settled, and the number of cases in which Italy has been found liable for infringements of the right to a trial within a reasonable time at the ECHR is alarming. 
Posebno je u talijanskom pravosuđu problem trajanja još daleko od konačnog rješenja, a broj osuda Italije zbog kršenja prava na postupak u razumnom roku pri Europskom sudu za ljudska prava (ESLJP) alarmantan je.
As far as the state of justice systems of the candidate countries is concerned, here the assessments are also divergent, but on the whole not very good. 
Što se tiče stanja u zemljama kandidatkinjama, ocjene državnog pravosuđa se razlikuju, no u globalu nisu blistave.
A study of judicial capacity in the first ten candidate countries resulted in the collective evaluation that “in any country judicial reform is bound to be fraught with obstacles, difficulties and delays - and more so in Central and Eastern European countries, after half a century of communist rule during which courts and the law itself were debased and used as mere instruments of power” (Monitoring EU Accession: Judicial Capacity (2002:7). 
Studija sudačke sposobnosti u deset prvih zemalja kandidatkinja rezultirala je ukupnom ocjenom o tome da je “u svakoj zemlji reforma pravosuđa povezana s preprekama, teškoćama i odugovlačenjem - osobito u zemljama središnje i istočne Europe, u kojima je pola stoljeća komunističke vladavine svelo sudove, pa i samo pravo, na puke instrumente političke moći” (Monitoring EU Accession: Judicial Capacity (2002:7).
As for the assessment of reforms, it is pointed out that evaluations from national reports reveal 
U vezi s ocjenom reformi, upozorava se da ocjene iz nacionalnih izvješća otkrivaju...
“...a vivid illustration of a number of paradoxes: profound structural reforms are needed in all these countries in order to provide the judicial system with the capacity to fulfil its constitutional mission according to the requirements of a democratic society. 
“... živahnu ilustraciju niza paradoksa: u svim tim zemljama potrebne su duboke strukturalne reforme da bi se pravosudnom sustavu osigurala sposobnost da ispunjava svoju ustavnu misiju u skladu sa zahtjevima demokratskog društva.
Such reforms require a strong and lasting political will from Governments and Parliaments - but one may ask if such a will really exists, or even how consistent the EU itself has been in calling for such commitment”.xi 
Takve reforme traže snažnu i trajnu političku volju parlamenata i vlada - no možemo se pitati postoji li takva volja uopće, pa čak i koliko je EU bio konzistentan kada je pozivao na preuzimanje takvih obveza”.xi
The fact that Croatian problems with the judiciary are not unique is not in itself consolatory. 
Činjenica da hrvatski pravosudni problemi nisu usamljeni nije sama po sebi utješna.
Even when it is compared with countries in which judicial problems rank high, the Croatian judiciary is bringing up the rear, vividly shown by the results of public opinion research that have shown that only in Croatia do the courts occupy the last place regarding public trust in social institutions. 
Naime, čak i kada se usporedi sa zemljama u kojima su pravosudni problemi visoko na popisu nedostataka, hrvatsko je pravosuđe na začelju, što zorno pokazuju već citirani rezultati istraživanja javnoga mnijenja koji su potvrdili da se jedino u Hrvatskoj sudovi nalaze na samom začelju povjerenja u institucije.
™ This is also shown by recent surveys carried out at the request of Transparency International, in which to the question “from which institutions would you first of all eradicate corruption” respondents placed health care first, and the courts immediately afterwards. 
™ Slično potvrđuju i nedavna ispitivanja provedena na zahtjev Transparency Internationala, u kojima su ispitanici na pitanje iz kojih bi institucija najprije iskorijenili korupciju na prvo mjesto stavili zdravstvo, a odmah iza njega sudstvo.
Seventy percent of citizens involved in the survey had the impression that corruption is to be found in the judiciary. 
Dojam o tome da u pravosuđu postoji korupcija u tom je ispitivanju imalo 70% ispitanika.
Recently it became public that the national budget has already paid out over a million kuna in damages to parties for violations of the human right to a fair trial within reasonable time (of this about 110,000 euros because of decisions of the ECHR and about 200,000 kuna as a result of decisions of the Constitutional Court of the RC). 
Kada je riječ o efikasnosti pravosuđa, nedavno je objavljen podatak da je samo za naknade strankama zbog povrede ljudskog prava na postupak u razumnom roku iz državnog proračuna već isplaćeno više od milijun kuna (od toga oko 110 000 eura prema odlukama ESLJP-a, a oko 200 000 kuna prema odlukama Ustavnog suda RH).
PROJECTS FOR ACCELERATING COURT PROCEEDINGS IN CIVIL MATTERS 
PROJEKTI NAMIJENJENI UBRZANJU GRAĐANSKOGA SUDSKOG POSTUPKA
Acceleration of court proceedings is as a rule just as complex as every other far-reaching reform in the judicial system. 
Ubrzavanje postupka po pravilu je jednako toliko složeno kao i svaka druga dalekosežna reforma u pravosuđu.