natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Commission shall, by 28 July 2010, submit a report to the European Parliament and the Council presenting the conclusions of a study of the issue of the placing on the market of replica firearms in order to determine whether the inclusion of such products within the scope of this Directive is possible and desirable.’;
Komisija do 28. julija 2010 predloži Evropskemu parlamentu in Svetu poročilo o ugotovitvah študije o dajanju replik strelnega orožja v promet, da se ugotovi, ali bi bila vključitev takšnih proizvodov v področje uporabe te direktive mogoča in zaželena.“;
in Part I, the first indent shall be replaced by the following:
v delu I se prva alinea nadomesti z:
any firearm as defined in Article 1 of the Directive,’;
katero koli strelno orožje, kakor je opredeljeno v členu 1 te direktive,“;
Part III shall be amended as follows:
del III se spremeni:
have been rendered permanently unfit for use by deactivation, ensuring that all essential parts of the firearm have been rendered permanently inoperable and incapable of removal, replacement or a modification that would permit the firearm to be reactivated in any way’;
so bili zavrnjeni kot stalno neprimerni za uporabo z onesposobitvijo, ki zagotavlja, da so vsi bistveni deli strelnega orožja trajno neuporabni in jih ni mogoče odstraniti, zamenjati ali prirediti, da bi strelno orožje na kakršen koli način ponovno usposobili;“;
the following paragraph shall be inserted after the first paragraph:
po prvem odstavku se vstavi naslednji odstavek:
‘Member States shall make arrangements for the deactivation measures referred to in point (a) to be verified by a competent authority in order to ensure that the modifications made to a firearm render it irreversibly inoperable.
„Države članice storijo vse potrebno, da pristojni organi lahko preverijo ukrepe za onesposobitev iz točke (a) in tako zagotovijo, da je strelno orožje zaradi opravljenih sprememb nepreklicno neuporabno.
Member States shall, in the context of this verification, provide for the issuance of a certificate or record attesting to the deactivation of the firearm or the apposition of a clearly visible mark to that effect on the firearm.
Države članice pri navedenem preverjanju zagotovijo, da se izda potrdilo ali drugi dokument, s katerim se potrdi onesposobitev strelnega orožja, ali ustrezno jasno vidno oznako na strelnem orožju, uporabljeno v ta namen.
The Commission shall, acting in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 13a(2) of the Directive, issue common guidelines on deactivation standards and techniques to ensure that deactivated firearms are rendered irreversibly inoperable.’.
Komisija v skladu z regulativnim postopkom iz člena 13a(2) te direktive izda skupne smernice o standardih in tehnikah za onesposobitev, ki zagotavljajo nepreklicno neuporabnost onesposobljenega strelnega orožja.“.
Member States shall, by 28 July 2010, bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive.
Države članice do 28. julija 2010 sprejmejo zakone in druge predpise, potrebne za uskladitev s to direktivo.
They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those measures.
O tem takoj obvestijo Komisijo.
Member States shall determine how such references are to be made.
Način sklicevanja določijo države članice.
OJ C 318, 23.12.2006, p. 83.
UL C 318, 23.12.2006, str. 83.
Opinion of the European Parliament of 29 November 2007 (not yet published in the Official Journal) and Council Decision of 17 April 2008.
Mnenje Evropskega parlamenta z dne 29. novembra 2007 (še ni objavljeno v Uradnem listu) in Sklep Sveta z dne 17. aprila 2008.
OJ L 280, 24.10.2001, p. 5.
UL L 280, 24.10.2001, str. 5.
Directive as last amended by Directive 2005/29/EC (OJ L 149, 11.6.2005, p. 22).’;
Direktiva, kakor je bila nazadnje spremenjena z Direktivo 2005/29/ES (UL L 149, 11.6.2005, str. 22).“;
OJ L 179, 8.7.2008, p. 5.’;
UL L 179, 8.7.2008, str. 5.“;
Text as corrected by OJ L 54, 5.3.1993, p. 22.
Besedilo, kakor je bilo popravljeno v UL L 54, 5.3.1993, str. 22.
It shall be valid for a maximum period of five years, which may be extended, and shall contain the information set out in Annex II. It shall be non-transferable and shall record the firearm or firearms possessed and used by the holder of the pass.
Velja največ za obdobje petih let, ki se lahko podaljša, in vsebuje informacije, določene v Prilogi II. Evropsko dovoljenje za strelno orožje je neprenosljivo, v njem je navedeno strelno orožje ali več njih, ki jih ima v posesti in uporablja imetnik dovoljenja.
Directive 2008/52/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
Direktiva 2008/52/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta
on certain aspects of mediation in civil and commercial matters
o nekaterih vidikih mediacije v civilnih in gospodarskih zadevah
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 61(c) and the second indent of Article 67(5) thereof,
ob upoštevanju Pogodbe o ustanovitvi Evropske skupnosti ter zlasti člena 61(c) in druge alinee člena 67(5) Pogodbe,
The Community has set itself the objective of maintaining and developing an area of freedom, security and justice, in which the free movement of persons is ensured.
Skupnost si je postavila cilj, da ohranja in razvija območje svobode, varnosti in pravice, na katerem je zagotovljeno prosto gibanje oseb.
To that end, the Community has to adopt, inter alia, measures in the field of judicial cooperation in civil matters that are necessary for the proper functioning of the internal market.
V ta namen mora Skupnost med drugim sprejeti ukrepe na področju pravosodnega sodelovanja v civilnih zadevah, ki so potrebni za pravilno delovanje notranjega trga.
The principle of access to justice is fundamental and, with a view to facilitating better access to justice, the European Council at its meeting in Tampere on 15 and 16 October 1999 called for alternative, extra-judicial procedures to be created by the Member States.
Načelo dostopa do sodnega varstva je temeljnega pomena in zaradi omogočanja lažjega in boljšega dostopa do sodnega varstva je Evropski svet na zasedanju v Tampereju 15. in 16. oktobra 1999 države članice pozval, da oblikujejo alternativne izvensodne postopke.
In May 2000 the Council adopted Conclusions on alternative methods of settling disputes under civil and commercial law, stating that the establishment of basic principles in this area is an essential step towards enabling the appropriate development and operation of extrajudicial procedures for the settlement of disputes in civil and commercial matters so as to simplify and improve access to justice.
Svet je maja 2000 sprejel sklepe o alternativnih načinih reševanja sporov po civilnem in gospodarskem pravu, v katerih navaja, da je vzpostavitev temeljnih načel na tem področju bistven korak k omogočanju ustreznega razvoja in delovanja izvensodnih postopkov za poravnavo sporov v civilnih in gospodarskih zadevah in s tem k poenostavitvi in izboljšanju dostopa do sodnega varstva.
In April 2002 the Commission presented a Green Paper on alternative dispute resolution in civil and commercial law, taking stock of the existing situation as concerns alternative dispute resolution methods in the European Union and initiating widespread consultations with Member States and interested parties on possible measures to promote the use of mediation.
Komisija je aprila 2002 predstavila zeleno knjigo alternativnih načinih reševanja sporov v civilnem in gospodarskem pravu, v kateri je povzela dejansko stanje v zvezi z alternativnimi načini reševanja sporov v Evropski uniji in začela obsežna posvetovanja z državami članicami in zainteresiranimi stranmi o možnih ukrepih za spodbujanje uporabe mediacije.
The objective of securing better access to justice, as part of the policy of the European Union to establish an area of freedom, security and justice, should encompass access to judicial as well as extrajudicial dispute resolution methods.
Cilj zagotavljanja boljšega dostopa do sodnega varstva, ki je del politike za vzpostavitev območja svobode, varnosti in pravice Evropske unije, bi moral vključevati dostop do sodnih in izvensodnih načinov reševanja sporov.
This Directive should contribute to the proper functioning of the internal market, in particular as concerns the availability of mediation services.
Ta direktiva bi morala prispevati k pravilnemu delovanju notranjega trga, zlasti glede razpoložljivosti storitev mediacije.
Mediation can provide a cost-effective and quick extrajudicial resolution of disputes in civil and commercial matters through processes tailored to the needs of the parties.
Mediacija lahko zagotavlja stroškovno učinkovito in hitro izvensodno reševanje sporov v civilnih in gospodarskih zadevah s pomočjo postopkov, prilagojenih potrebam strank.
Agreements resulting from mediation are more likely to be complied with voluntarily and are more likely to preserve an amicable and sustainable relationship between the parties.
Za dogovore, dosežene v mediaciji, je verjetneje, da se bodo izvajali prostovoljno in pomagali ohraniti prijateljski in trajnostni odnos med strankami.
These benefits become even more pronounced in situations displaying cross-border elements.
Te prednosti postanejo še izrazitejše v primerih s čezmejnimi elementi.
In order to promote further the use of mediation and ensure that parties having recourse to mediation can rely on a predictable legal framework, it is necessary to introduce framework legislation addressing, in particular, key aspects of civil procedure.
Da bi nadalje spodbudili uporabo mediacije in zagotovili, da se lahko stranke, ki se zatečejo k mediaciji, zanesejo na predvidljiv pravni okvir, je treba uvesti okvirno zakonodajo, v kateri so obravnavani zlasti ključni vidiki civilnih postopkov.
The provisions of this Directive should apply only to mediation in cross-border disputes, but nothing should prevent Member States from applying such provisions also to internal mediation processes.
Določbe te direktive bi se morale uporabljati le za mediacijo v čezmejnih sporih, vendar državam članicam nič ne bi smelo preprečevati uporabe teh določb tudi v notranjih postopkih mediacije.
This Directive should not in any way prevent the use of modern communication technologies in the mediation process.
Ta direktiva na noben način ne bi smela preprečevati uporabe sodobnih komunikacijskih tehnologij v postopku mediacije.
This Directive should apply to processes whereby two or more parties to a cross-border dispute attempt by themselves, on a voluntary basis, to reach an amicable agreement on the settlement of their dispute with the assistance of a mediator.
Ta direktiva bi se morala uporabljati za postopke, v katerih poskušata dve ali več strank v čezmejnem sporu prostovoljno s pomočjo mediatorja doseči sporazumni dogovor za rešitev spora.
It should apply in civil and commercial matters.
Uporabljati bi se morala v civilnih in gospodarskih zadevah.
However, it should not apply to rights and obligations on which the parties are not free to decide themselves under the relevant applicable law.
Za pravice in obveznosti, o katerih stranke v skladu z ustrezno veljavno zakonodajo ne morejo svobodno odločati, pa naj se ne bi uporabljala.
Such rights and obligations are particularly frequent in family law and employment law.
Takšne pravice in obveznosti so zlasti pogoste v družinskem in delovnem pravu.
This Directive should not apply to pre-contractual negotiations or to processes of an adjudicatory nature such as certain judicial conciliation schemes, consumer complaint schemes, arbitration and expert determination or to processes administered by persons or bodies issuing a formal recommendation, whether or not it be legally binding as to the resolution of the dispute.
Ta direktiva se ne bi smela uporabljati za predpogodbena pogajanja ali postopke sodne narave, kot so določeni sodni poravnalni postopki, pritožbeni postopki potrošnikov, arbitraža in imenovanja izvedencev, ali za postopke, ki jih vodijo osebe ali organi, ki izdajajo pravno zavezujoča ali nezavezujoča uradna priporočila za reševanje spora.
This Directive should apply to cases where a court refers parties to mediation or in which national law prescribes mediation.
Ta direktiva bi se morala uporabljati za primere, v katerih sodišče stranke napoti na mediacijo ali pa je mediacija predpisana z notranjim pravom.
Furthermore, in so far as a judge may act as a mediator under national law, this Directive should also apply to mediation conducted by a judge who is not responsible for any judicial proceedings relating to the matter or matters in dispute.
Če notranje pravo sodniku omogoča opravljati vlogo mediatorja, bi se nadalje morala ta direktiva uporabljati tudi za mediacijo, ki jo vodi sodnik, ki ni pristojen za noben sodni postopek v zvezi z zadevo ali zadevami, ki so predmet spora.
This Directive should not, however, extend to attempts made by the court or judge seised to settle a dispute in the context of judicial proceedings concerning the dispute in question or to cases in which the court or judge seised requests assistance or advice from a competent person.
Ta direktiva pa ne bi smela zajemati poskusov sodišča ali sodnika, ki mu je zadeva predložena v reševanje, v okviru sodnega postopka o zadevnem sporu, ali primerov, v katerih sodišče ali sodnik, ki mu je bila zadeva predložena, za pomoč ali nasvet zaprosi pristojno osebo.
The mediation provided for in this Directive should be a voluntary process in the sense that the parties are themselves in charge of the process and may organise it as they wish and terminate it at any time.
Mediacija, predvidena v tej direktivi, bi morala potekati prostovoljno, tako da stranke same vodijo postopek, ter ga lahko organizirajo tako kot želijo, in zaključijo, kadar želijo.
However, it should be possible under national law for the courts to set time-limits for a mediation process.
Vseeno bi moralo biti sodiščem v skladu z notranjim pravom omogočeno, da postopek mediacije časovno omejijo.
Moreover, the courts should be able to draw the parties’ attention to the possibility of mediation whenever this is appropriate.
Poleg tega bi morala sodišča imeti možnost opozarjanja strank na možnost mediacije, kadar je to ustrezno.
Nothing in this Directive should prejudice national legislation making the use of mediation compulsory or subject to incentives or sanctions provided that such legislation does not prevent parties from exercising their right of access to the judicial system.
Nobena določba te direktive ne bi smela posegati v nacionalno zakonodajo, ki določa, da je mediacija obvezna oziroma povezana s spodbudami ali sankcijami, pod pogojem, da takšna zakonodaja strankam ne preprečuje uveljavljati njihovih pravic v sodnem sistemu.
Nor should anything in this Directive prejudice existing self-regulating mediation systems in so far as these deal with aspects which are not covered by this Directive.
Prav tako ta direktiva ne bi smela na noben način vplivati na obstoječe, samoregulirane sisteme mediacije, če ti obravnavajo vidike, ki jih ta direktiva ne zajema.
In order to provide legal certainty, this Directive should indicate which date should be relevant for determining whether or not a dispute which the parties attempt to settle through mediation is a cross-border dispute.
Da se zagotovi pravna varnost, bi bilo treba v tej direktivi navesti datum, ki je odločilen za ugotovitev, ali je spor, ki ga poskušajo stranke rešiti z mediacijo, čezmejni spor.
In the absence of a written agreement, the parties should be deemed to agree to use mediation at the point in time when they take specific action to start the mediation process.
Če o tem ni pisnega dogovora, bi moralo veljati, da stranke soglašajo z uporabo mediacije v trenutku, ko sprejmejo posebne ukrepe za začetek postopka mediacije.
To ensure the necessary mutual trust with respect to confidentiality, effect on limitation and prescription periods, and recognition and enforcement of agreements resulting from mediation, Member States should encourage, by any means they consider appropriate, the training of mediators and the introduction of effective quality control mechanisms concerning the provision of mediation services.
Da bi zagotovili potrebno medsebojno zaupanje glede zaupnosti, učinka na prekluzivne in zastaralne roke ter priznavanja in izvrševanja dogovorov, doseženih v mediaciji, bi morale države članice na ustrezen način spodbujati usposabljanje mediatorjev in uvedbo učinkovitih mehanizmov nadzora kakovosti v zvezi z zagotavljanjem storitev mediacije.
Member States should define such mechanisms, which may include having recourse to market-based solutions, and should not be required to provide any funding in that respect.
Države članice bi morale opredeliti takšne mehanizme, ki lahko vključujejo tudi uporabo tržno zasnovanih rešitev, od njih pa se s tem v zvezi ne bi smelo zahtevati, da zagotovijo kakršno koli financiranje.
The mechanisms should aim at preserving the flexibility of the mediation process and the autonomy of the parties, and at ensuring that mediation is conducted in an effective, impartial and competent way.
Cilj mehanizmov bi moral biti ohranjanje prožnosti postopka mediacije in avtonomije strank ter zagotavljanje učinkovite, nepristranske in strokovne mediacije.
Mediators should be made aware of the existence of the European Code of Conduct for Mediators which should also be made available to the general public on the Internet.
Mediatorji bi morali biti seznanjeni z Evropskim kodeksom ravnanja mediatorjev, ki bi moral biti prek interneta na voljo javnosti.
In the field of consumer protection, the Commission has adopted a Recommendation [3] establishing minimum quality criteria which out-of-court bodies involved in the consensual resolution of consumer disputes should offer to their users.
Na področju varstva potrošnikov je Komisija sprejela uradno priporočilo [3] o določitvi minimalnih meril kakovosti, ki bi jo morali izvensodni organi, vključeni v sporazumno reševanje potrošniških sporov, ponuditi uporabnikom.
Any mediators or organisations coming within the scope of that Recommendation should be encouraged to respect its principles.
Vse mediatorje ali organizacije s področja uporabe priporočila, bi bilo treba spodbuditi k upoštevanju v njem določenih načel.
In order to facilitate the dissemination of information concerning such bodies, the Commission should set up a database of out-of-court schemes which Member States consider as respecting the principles of that Recommendation.
Da bi olajšali razširjanje informacij, ki se nanašajo na te organe, bi morala Komisija vzpostaviti podatkovno bazo o izvensodnih postopkih, ki po mnenju držav članic izpolnjujejo načela tega priporočila.
Mediation should not be regarded as a poorer alternative to judicial proceedings in the sense that compliance with agreements resulting from mediation would depend on the good will of the parties.
Mediacija ne bi smela veljati za slabšo možnost od sodnih postopkov v smislu, da bi bilo izvajanje dogovorov, doseženih v mediaciji, odvisno od dobre volje strank.
Member States should therefore ensure that the parties to a written agreement resulting from mediation can have the content of their agreement made enforceable.
Države članice naj bi zato strankam pisnega dogovora, doseženega v mediaciji, zagotovile izvršljivost vsebine njihovega dogovora.
It should only be possible for a Member State to refuse to make an agreement enforceable if the content is contrary to its law, including its private international law, or if its law does not provide for the enforceability of the content of the specific agreement.
Država članica bi lahko izvršljivost dogovora zavrnila le, če je njegova vsebina v nasprotju z zakonodajo te države članice, vključno z njenim mednarodnim zasebnim pravom, ali če njena zakonodaja ne predvideva izvršljivosti vsebine določenega dogovora.
This could be the case if the obligation specified in the agreement was by its nature unenforceable.
To bi se lahko zgodilo, če obveznosti, določene v dogovoru, po naravi niso izvršljive.
The content of an agreement resulting from mediation which has been made enforceable in a Member State should be recognised and declared enforceable in the other Member States in accordance with applicable Community or national law.
Vsebina dogovora, doseženega v mediaciji, ki je bila razglašena za izvršljivo v eni državi članici, bi morala biti v skladu z veljavno zakonodajo Skupnosti ali notranjim pravom priznana in razglašena za izvršljivo v drugih državah članicah.
This could, for example, be on the basis of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters [4] or Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility [5].
Podlaga za to bi na primer lahko bila Uredba Sveta (ES) št. 44/2001 z dne 22. decembra 2000 o pristojnosti in priznavanju ter izvrševanju sodnih odločb v civilnih in gospodarskih zadevah [4] ali Uredba Sveta (ES) št. 2201/2003 z dne 27. novembra 2003 o pristojnosti in priznavanju ter izvrševanju sodnih odločb v zakonskih sporih in v sporih v zvezi s starševsko odgovornostjo [5].
Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 specifically provides that, in order to be enforceable in another Member State, agreements between the parties have to be enforceable in the Member State in which they were concluded.
Uredba (ES) št. 2201/2003 izrecno določa, da je pogoj za izvršljivost dogovorov med strankami v drugi državi članici njihova izvršljivost v državi članici, v kateri so bili doseženi.
Consequently, if the content of an agreement resulting from mediation in a family law matter is not enforceable in the Member State where the agreement was concluded and where the request for enforceability is made, this Directive should not encourage the parties to circumvent the law of that Member State by having their agreement made enforceable in another Member State.
V primeru, da vsebina v mediaciji doseženega dogovora v družinskopravni zadevi ni izvršljiva v državi članici, v kateri je bil dosežen dogovor in vložena zahteva za njegovo izvršljivost, ta direktiva ne bi smela spodbujati strank, da obidejo zakon te države članice s tem, da dosežejo izvršljivost dogovora v drugi državi članici.
This Directive should not affect the rules in the Member States concerning enforcement of agreements resulting from mediation.
Ta direktiva ne bi smela vplivati na predpise držav članic glede izvršbe dogovorov, doseženih v mediaciji.
Confidentiality in the mediation process is important and this Directive should therefore provide for a minimum degree of compatibility of civil procedural rules with regard to how to protect the confidentiality of mediation in any subsequent civil and commercial judicial proceedings or arbitration.
Zaupnost v postopku mediacije je pomembna, zato bi morala ta direktiva zagotoviti minimalno stopnjo združljivosti predpisov, ki urejajo civilni postopek, in sicer v zvezi z načinom, kako varovati zaupnost mediacije v vseh naknadnih civilnih in gospodarskih sodnih postopkih ali pri arbitraži.
In order to encourage the parties to use mediation, Member States should ensure that their rules on limitation and prescription periods do not prevent the parties from going to court or to arbitration if their mediation attempt fails.
Da bi stranke spodbudili k uporabi mediacije, bi morale države članice zagotoviti, da njihovi predpisi o zastaralnih in prekluzivnih rokih strankam ne preprečujejo dostopa do sodišča ali arbitraže v primeru neuspešne mediacije.
Member States should make sure that this result is achieved even though this Directive does not harmonise national rules on limitation and prescription periods.
Države članice bi morale zagotoviti, da se ta cilj doseže, čeprav ta direktiva ne usklajuje nacionalnih predpisov o zastaralnih in prekluzivnih rokih.