natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In order to reduce the risks and consequences of unauthorised or incorrectly executed payment transactions the payment service user should inform the payment service provider as soon as possible about any contestations concerning allegedly unauthorised or incorrectly executed payment transactions provided that the payment service provider has fulfilled his information obligations under this Directive.
Da bi zmanjšali tveganje in olajšali posledice neodobrenih ali nepravilno izvršenih plačilnih transakcij, bi moral uporabnik plačilnih storitev ponudnika plačilnih storitev čim prej obvestiti o morebitnem izpodbijanju domnevno neodobrenih ali nepravilno izvedenih plačilnih transakcij, pod pogojem, da je ponudnik plačilnih storitev v skladu s to direktivo izpolnil svoje obveznosti posredovanja informacij.
If the notification deadline is met by the payment service user, he should be able to pursue those claims within the prescription periods pursuant to national law.
Če je uporabnik plačilnih storitev poslal takšno obvestilo v predpisanem roku, bi moral imeti možnost, da takšne zahtevke uveljavi v rokih, predpisanih v nacionalni zakonodaji.
This Directive should not affect other claims between payment service users and payment service providers.
Ta direktiva ne bi smela vplivati na druge zahtevke med uporabniki in ponudniki plačilnih storitev.
In order to provide an incentive for the payment service user to notify, without undue delay, his provider of any theft or loss of a payment instrument and thus to reduce the risk of unauthorised payment transactions, the user should be liable only for a limited amount, unless the payment service user has acted fraudulently or with gross negligence.
Da bi uporabnike plačilnih storitev spodbudili, da svojega ponudnika plačilnih storitev nemudoma obvestijo o kraji ali izgubi plačilnega instrumenta in tako zmanjšajo tveganje neodobrenih plačilnih transakcij, bi moral biti uporabnik odgovoren samo za omejeni znesek, razen če je ravnal goljufivo ali iz hude malomarnosti.
Moreover, once a user has notified a payment service provider that his payment instrument may have been compromised, the user should not be required to cover any further losses stemming from unauthorised use of that instrument.
Poleg tega, ko uporabnik obvesti ponudnika plačilne storitve, da bi lahko bil njegov plačilni instrument zlorabljen, se od uporabnika ne bi smelo zahtevati, da krije kakršne koli nadaljnje izgube, ki so posledica nedovoljene uporabe navedenega instrumenta.
This Directive should be without prejudice to the payment service providers' responsibility for technical security of their own products.
Ta direktiva ne bi smela posegati v odgovornost ponudnikov plačilnih storitev za tehnično varnost lastnih proizvodov.
In order to assess possible negligence by the payment service user, account should be taken of all the circumstances.
Da bi se ocenila morebitna malomarnost uporabnikov plačilnih storitev, bi bilo treba upoštevati vse okoliščine.
The evidence and degree of alleged negligence should be evaluated according to national law.
Dokaze in stopnjo domnevne malomarnosti bi bilo treba oceniti na osnovi nacionalne zakonodaje.
Contractual terms and conditions relating to the provision and use of a payment instrument, the effect of which would be to increase the burden of proof on the consumer or to reduce the burden of proof on the issuer should be considered null and void.
Pogodbeni pogoji v zvezi z zagotavljanjem in uporabo plačilnega instrumenta, ki bi posledično povečali dokazno breme za potrošnika ali zmanjšali dokazno breme za izdajatelja, bi se morali šteti za nične in neveljavne.
However, Member States should be able to establish less stringent rules than mentioned above in order to maintain existing levels of consumer protection and promote trust in the safe usage of electronic payment instruments.
Vendar bi moralo biti državam članicam omogočeno, da določijo manj stroga pravila od zgoraj navedenih, da se ohrani obstoječa stopnja varstva potrošnikov in spodbudi zaupanje v varno uporabo elektronskih plačilnih instrumentov.
The fact that different payment instruments involve different risks should be taken into account accordingly thus promoting the issuance of safer instruments.
Ustrezno bi bilo treba upoštevati tudi dejstvo, da različni plačilni instrumenti pomenijo različna tveganja, saj bi tako spodbudili izdajanje varnejših instrumentov.
Member States should be allowed to reduce or completely waive the payer's liability except where the payer has acted fraudulently.
Državam članicam bi moralo biti dovoljeno zmanjšati ali popolnoma opustiti odgovornost plačnika, razen če je plačnik ravnal goljufivo.
Provisions should be made for the allocation of losses in the case of unauthorised payment transactions.
Treba bi bilo predvideti določbe za razporejanje izgub v primeru neodobrenih plačilnih transakcij.
Different provisions may apply to payment service users who are not consumers, since such users are normally in a better position to assess the risk of fraud and take countervailing measures.
Za uporabnike plačilnih storitev, ki niso potrošniki, se lahko uporabljajo drugačne določbe, ker so taki uporabniki ponavadi bolje zmožni presoditi tveganje goljufije in sprejeti izravnalne ukrepe.
This Directive should lay down rules for a refund to protect the consumer when the executed payment transaction exceeds the amount which could reasonably have been expected.
Ta direktiva bi morala določiti pravila za povračila, da bi bil potrošnik zaščiten, kadar izvedena plačilna transakcija prekorači upravičeno pričakovan znesek.
Payment service providers should be able to provide even more favourable terms to their customers and, for example, refund any disputed payment transactions.
Ponudnikom plačilnih storitev bi moralo biti omogočeno, da svojim strankam zagotovijo celo ugodnejše pogoje, na primer povračilo vseh spornih plačilnih transakcij.
In cases where the user makes a claim for the refund of a payment transaction refund rights should affect neither the liability of the payer vis-à-vis the payee from the underlying relationship, e.g. for goods or services ordered, consumed or legitimately charged, nor the users rights with regard to revocation of a payment order.
V primerih, ko uporabnik terja povračilo plačilne transakcije, pravice do povračila ne bi smele vplivati niti na obveznost plačnika do prejemnika, izhajajočo iz temeljnega pogodbenega razmerja, npr. za plačila za naročeno, potrošeno ali zakonito zaračunano blago ali storitve niti na pravice uporabnika do preklica plačilnega naloga.
For financial planning and the fulfilment of payment obligations in due time, consumers and enterprises need to have certainty on the length of time that the execution of a payment order takes.
Za finančno načrtovanje in pravočasno izpolnjevanje plačilnih obveznosti morajo imeti potrošniki in podjetja zagotovilo glede obdobja, ki je potrebno za izvršitev plačilnega naloga.
Therefore, this Directive should introduce a point in time at which rights and obligations take effect, namely, when the payment service provider receives the payment order, including when he has had the opportunity to receive it through the means of communication agreed in the payment service contract, notwithstanding any prior involvement in the process leading up to the creation and transmission of the payment order, e.g. security and availability of funds checks, information on the use of the personal identity number or issuance of a payment promise.
Zato bi morala ta direktiva uvesti trenutek za začetek učinkovanja pravic in obveznost, in sicer ko ponudnik plačilnih storitev prejme plačilni nalog, vključno z možnostjo prejema po sredstvih obveščanja, dogovorjenih v pogodbi o plačilnih storitvah, ne glede na predhodno sodelovanje v postopku oblikovanja in posredovanja plačilnega naloga, kot so preverjanje varnosti in razpoložljivosti sredstev, informacije v zvezi z uporabo osebne identifikacijske številke ali obljuba plačila.
Furthermore, the receipt of a payment order should occur when the payer's payment service provider receives the payment order to be debited from the payer's account.
Poleg tega bi se moral za prejem plačilnega naloga šteti trenutek, ko ponudnik plačilnih storitev prejme plačilni nalog, ki bo bremenil plačnikov račun.
The day or moment in time when a payee transmits to his service provider payment orders for the collection e.g. of card payment or of direct debits or when the payee is granted a pre-financing on the related amounts by his payment service provider (by way of a contingent credit to his account) should have no relevance in this respect.
Dan ali trenutek, ko prejemnik plačila svojemu ponudniku plačilnih storitev posreduje plačilne naloge za poravnavo na primer plačil s karticami ali direktnih bremenitev ali ko ponudnik plačilnih storitev prejemniku plačila odobri predhodno financiranje zadevnih zneskov (s posojilom v primeru nepričakovanih dogodkov), bi moral biti v tej zvezi brezpredmeten.
Users should be able to rely on the proper execution of a complete and valid payment order if the payment service provider has no contractual or statutory ground for refusal.
Uporabniki bi morali imeti možnost, da se zanesejo na pravilno izvršitev popolnega in veljavnega plačilnega naloga, če ponudnik plačilnih storitev nima pogodbenih ali zakonskih razlogov za zavrnitev.
If the payment service provider refuses a payment order, the refusal and the reason therefor should be communicated to the payment service user at the earliest opportunity subject to the requirements of Community and national law.
Če ponudnik plačilnih storitev plačilni nalog zavrne, bi moral to dejstvo in razlog zanj sporočiti uporabniku plačilnih storitev ob prvi priložnosti, v skladu z zakonodajo Skupnosti in nacionalno zakonodajo.
In view of the speed with which modern fully automated payment systems process payment transactions, which means that after a certain point in time payment orders cannot be revoked without high manual intervention costs, it is necessary to specify a clear deadline for payment revocations.
Glede na hitrost, s katero sodobni, popolnoma avtomatizirani plačilni sistemi obdelujejo plačilne transakcije, kar pomeni, da po določenem trenutku plačilnega naloga ni mogoče preklicati brez visokih stroškov ročnega posredovanja, je treba določiti jasen rok za preklic plačila.
However, depending on the type of the payment service and the payment order, the point in time may be varied by agreement between the parties.
Pogodbene stranke se lahko dogovorijo o drugačnem roku, odvisno od vrste plačilne storitve in plačilnega naloga.
Revocation, in this context, is applicable only to the relationship between a payment service user and payment service provider, thus being without prejudice to the irrevocability and finality of payment transactions in payment systems.
V tem smislu se preklic lahko uporablja samo v razmerju med uporabnikom in ponudnikom plačilnih storitev, kar ne posega v nepreklicnost in dokončnost plačilnih transakcij v plačilnih sistemih.
Such irrevocability should not affect a payment service provider's right or obligation under the laws of some Member States, based on the payer's framework contract or national laws, regulations, administrative provisions or guidelines, to reimburse the payer with the amount of the executed payment transaction in the event of a dispute between the payer and the payee.
Nepreklicnost transakcij ne bi smela vplivati na pravico ali obveznost ponudnika plačilnih storitev v skladu z zakonodajo nekaterih držav članic – če izhaja iz okvirne pogodbe plačnika ali nacionalnih zakonodaj, predpisov, upravnih določb ali smernic –, da plačniku v primeru spora s prejemnikom plačil povrne znesek izvršene plačilne transakcije.
Such reimbursement should be considered to be a new payment order.
Takšno povračilo bi se moralo šteti za nov plačilni nalog.
Except for those cases, legal disputes arising within the relationship underlying the payment order should be settled only between the payer and the payee.
V vseh drugih primerih bi se morali pravni spori, izhajajoči iz razmerja v zvezi s plačilnim nalogom, reševati izključno med plačnikom in prejemnikom plačila.
It is essential, for the fully integrated straight-through processing of payments and for legal certainty with respect to the fulfilment of any underlying obligation between payment service users, that the full amount transferred by the payer should be credited to the account of the payee.
Za popolnoma integrirano obdelavo plačil brez ročnega posredovanja in pravno gotovost glede izpolnitve osnovnih obveznosti med uporabniki plačilnih storitev je nujno, da bi moral biti celotni znesek, ki ga prenese plačnik, nakazan na račun prejemnika plačila.
Accordingly, it should not be possible for any of the intermediaries involved in the execution of payment transactions to make deductions from the amount transferred.
V skladu s tem ne bi smelo biti dovoljeno, da posredniki, ki sodelujejo v izvršitvi plačilnih transakcij, uveljavljajo odbitke od prenesenih zneskov.
However, it should be possible for the payee to enter into an agreement with his payment service provider under which the latter may deduct his own charges.
Po drugi strani pa bi moralo biti omogočeno, da prejemnik plačila sklene dogovor s ponudnikom plačilnih storitev, po katerem lahko slednji zaračuna svoja nadomestila.
Nevertheless, in order to enable the payee to verify that the amount due is correctly paid, subsequent information provided on the payment transaction should indicate not only the full amount of funds transferred but also the amount of any charges.
Da bi prejemnik plačila lahko preveril, ali je bil dolgovani znesek pravilno plačan, bi morale naknadne informacije o plačilni transakciji vsekakor vsebovati tudi znesek morebitnih nadomestil, ne le celotnega zneska prenesenih sredstev.
With regard to charges, experience has shown that the sharing of charges between a payer and a payee is the most efficient system since it facilitates the straight-through processing of payments.
Kar zadeva nadomestila, so izkušnje pokazale, da je delitev nadomestil med plačnikom in prejemnikom plačila najbolj učinkovit sistem, ker pospešuje obdelavo plačil brez ročnega posredovanja.
Provision should therefore be made for charges to be levied, in the normal course, directly on the payer and the payee by their respective payment service providers.
Zato bi bilo treba določiti, da vsak ponudnik plačilnih storitev zaračuna nadomestila v običajnih okoliščinah neposredno prejemniku plačila in plačniku.
However, that should apply only where the payment transaction does not require currency exchange.
To pa bi se moralo uporabljati le, če plačilna transakcija ne zahteva menjave valut.
The amount of any charges levied may also be zero as the provisions of this Directive do not affect the practice whereby the payment service provider does not charge consumers for crediting their accounts.
Znesek nadomestil je lahko tudi nič, ker določbe te direktive ne vplivajo na prakso, da ponudnik plačilnih storitev potrošnikom ne zaračunava knjiženja v dobro njihovih računov.
Similarly, depending on the contract terms, a payment service provider may charge only the payee (merchant) for the use of the payment service, which has the effect that no charges are imposed on the payer.
Podobno lahko, odvisno od pogodbenih pogojev, ponudnik plačilnih storitev za uporabo plačilnih storitev zaračuna samo prejemniku plačila (trgovcu), kar pomeni, da plačniku ne zaračuna nobenih nadomestil.
The charging of the payment systems may be in the form of a subscription fee.
Zaračunavanje za plačilne sisteme je lahko v obliki naročnine.
The provisions on the amount transferred or any charges levied have no direct impact on pricing between payment service providers or any intermediaries.
Določbe o prenesenem znesku ali morebitnih zaračunanih nadomestilih ne vplivajo neposredno na oblikovanje cen med ponudniki plačilnih storitev ali morebitnimi posredniki.
In order to promote transparency and competition, the payment service provider should not prevent the payee from requesting a charge from the payer for using a specific payment instrument.
Zaradi spodbujanja preglednosti in konkurence ponudnik plačilnih storitev ne bi smel preprečiti prejemniku plačila, da od plačnika zahteva plačilo nadomestil za uporabo določenega plačilnega instrumenta.
While the payee should be free to levy charges for the use of a certain payment instrument, Member States may decide whether they forbid or limit any such practice where, in their view, this may be warranted in view of abusive pricing or pricing which may have a negative impact on the use of a certain payment instrument taking into account the need to encourage competition and the use of efficient payment instruments.
Medtem ko je treba prejemniku plačila omogočiti, da poljubno zaračuna nadomestila za uporabo določenega plačilnega instrumenta, bi se lahko države članice odločile prepovedati ali omejiti takšno prakso, če je to po njihovem mnenju upravičeno zaradi neprimernega oblikovanja cen ali morebitnih negativnih posledic takšnega oblikovanja cen za uporabo nekega plačilnega instrumenta, pri čemer bi morale upoštevati, da je treba spodbujati konkurenco in uporabo učinkovitih plačilnih instrumentov.
In order to improve the efficiency of payments throughout the Community, all payment orders initiated by the payer and denominated in euro or the currency of a Member State outside the euro area, including credit transfers and money remittances, should be subject to a maximum one-day execution time.
Za izboljšanje učinkovitosti plačil v Skupnosti bi bilo treba določiti obdobje enega dne kot najdaljši rok izvršitve vseh plačilnih nalogov v eurih ali v valuti države članice izven euroobmočja, ki jih odredi plačnik, vključno s kreditnimi prenosi in denarnimi nakazili.
For all other payments, such as payments initiated by or through a payee, including direct debits and card payments, in the absence of an explicit agreement between the payment service provider and the payer setting a longer execution time, the same one-day execution time should apply.
Za vsa druga plačila, kot so plačila, ki jih je odredil prejemnik plačila ali so bila odrejena prek njega, vključno z direktnimi bremenitvami in plačili s karticami, če ni izrecnega dogovora med ponudnikom in plačnikom o daljšem roku izvršitve, bi se moral uporabljati enak enodnevni rok izvršitve.
The periods above could be extended by an additional business day, if a payment order is given on paper.
Zgornja obdobja se lahko podaljšajo za dodatni delovni dan, če je plačilni nalog izdan na papirju.
This allows the continued provision of payment services for those consumers who are used to paper documents only.
To omogoča nadaljnje zagotavljanje plačilnih storitev tistim potrošnikom, ki so navajeni na dokumente izključno na papirju.
When a direct debit scheme is used the payee's payment service provider should transmit the collection order within the time limits agreed between the payee and his payment service provider, enabling settlement at the agreed due date.
Pri shemah direktnih bremenitev bi moral ponudnik plačilnih storitev prejemnika plačila posredovati nalog za unovčenje v roku, o katerem se je dogovoril s prejemnikom plačila, tako da je poravnava mogoča na dogovorjeni dan zapadlosti.
In view of the fact that national payment infrastructures are often highly efficient and in order to prevent any deterioration in current service levels, Member States should be allowed to maintain or set rules specifying an execution time shorter than one business day, where appropriate.
Glede na to, da so nacionalne plačilne infrastrukture pogosto zelo učinkovite, in da bi preprečili poslabšanje obstoječe kakovosti storitev, bi bilo treba državam članicam dovoliti, da po potrebi ohranijo ali določijo pravila, po katerih je čas izvršitve krajši od enega delovnega dne.
The provisions on execution for the full amount and execution time should constitute good practice where one of the service providers is not located in the Community.
Določbe o izvršitvi za celotni znesek in o času izvršitve bi morale pomeniti dobro prakso, kadar se eden od ponudnikov storitev ne nahaja v Skupnosti.
It is essential for payment service users to know the real costs and charges of payment services in order to make their choice.
Za uporabnika plačilnih storitev je nujno, da pozna realne stroške in nadomestila za plačilne storitve, ki mu omogočajo ustrezno izbiro.
Accordingly, the use of non-transparent pricing methods should not be allowed, since it is commonly accepted that those methods make it extremely difficult for users to establish the real price of the payment service.
V skladu s tem se ne bi smela dovoliti uporaba nepreglednih načinov oblikovanja cen, ker je splošno znano, da te metode uporabnikom zelo otežujejo ugotavljanje realne cene plačilne storitve.
Specifically, the use of value dating to the disadvantage of the user should not be permitted.
Uporaba datuma valute v škodo uporabnika ne bi smela biti dovoljena.
The smooth and efficient functioning of the payment system depends on the user being able to rely on the payment service provider executing the payment transaction correctly and within the agreed time.
Za nemoteno in učinkovito delovanje plačilnega sistema je pomembno, da se lahko uporabnik zanese, da bo ponudnik plačilnih storitev izvršil plačilno transakcijo pravilno in v dogovorjenem času.
Usually, the provider is in the position to assess the risks involved in the payment transaction.
Navadno je ponudnik tisti, ki lahko oceni tveganja, povezana s plačilno transakcijo.
It is the provider that provides the payments system, makes arrangements to recall misplaced or wrongly allocated funds and decides in most cases on the intermediaries involved in the execution of a payment transaction.
Ponudnik je tisti, ki zagotavlja plačilni sistem, izvede aktivnosti za odpoklic napačno ali nepravilno dodeljenih sredstev in v večini primerov odloča o posrednikih, ki sodelujejo pri izvršitvi plačilne transakcije.
In view of all those considerations, it is entirely appropriate, except under abnormal and unforeseeable circumstances, to impose liability on the payment service provider in respect of execution of a payment transaction accepted from the user, except for the payee's payment service provider's acts and omissions for whose selection solely the payee is responsible.
Glede na vse te okoliščine je popolnoma primerno, da se, razen v izjemnih in nepredvidljivih okoliščinah, določi odgovornost ponudnika plačilnih storitev za izvrševanje plačilnih transakcij, ki jih sprejme od uporabnika, razen za dejanja in opustitve ponudnika plačilnih storitev prejemnika plačila, za izbiro katerih je odgovoren le prejemnik plačila.
However, in order not to leave the payer unprotected in unlikely constellations where it may remain open (non liquet) whether the payment amount was duly received by the payee's payment service provider or not, the corresponding burden of proof should lie upon the payer's payment service provider.
Da pa plačnika ne bi pustili nezavarovanega v malo verjetnih situacijah, v katerih ni mogoče dokazati (non liquet), ali je ponudnik plačilnih storitev prejemnika plačila prejel znesek plačila ali ne, bi moral dokazno breme nositi plačnikov ponudnik plačilnih storitev.
As a rule, it can be expected that the intermediary institution, usually a ‘neutral’ body like a central bank or a clearing house, transferring the payment amount from the sending to the receiving payment service provider will store the account data and be able to furnish the latter whenever this may be necessary.
Praviloma se lahko pričakuje, da bo posredniška institucija (običajno „nevtralni“ organ, kot je centralna banka ali klirinška hiša), ki prenese znesek plačila od ponudnika plačilnih storitev pošiljatelja ponudniku plačilnih storitev prejemnika, shranila obračunske podatke in jih bo po potrebi lahko ponovno zagotovila.