natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Reasonable grounds could, inter alia, include cases where a suspected or accused person invokes, while giving details, that he is subject to parallel criminal proceedings in respect of the same facts in another Member State, or in case a relevant request for mutual legal assistance by a competent authority in another Member State reveals the possible existence of such parallel criminal proceedings, or in case a police authority provides information to this effect.
Utemeljena domneva na primer lahko vključuje primere, pri katerih osumljenec ali obtoženec pri navajanju podrobnosti uveljavlja dejstvo, da zoper njega poteka vzporedni kazenski postopek na podlagi istih dejstev v drugi državi članici, ali se na podlagi ustreznega zaprosila za vzajemno pravno pomoč s strani pristojnega organa v drugi državi članici razkrije, da lahko obstaja takšen vzporeden kazenski postopek, oziroma take informacije posredujejo policijski organi.
The process of exchange of information between competent authorities should be based upon the obligatory exchange of a specific minimum set of information, which should always be provided.
Postopek izmenjave informacij med pristojnimi organi bi moral temeljiti na obvezni izmenjavi posebnega minimalnega nabora informacij, ki bi jih bilo treba vsakič priložiti.
The information concerned should notably facilitate the process of ensuring the proper identification of the person concerned and the nature and stage of the respective parallel proceedings.
Posredovane informacije bi morale predvsem omogočati postopek zagotavljanja pravilne identifikacije zadevne osebe in narave ter stopnje vzporednih postopkov.
A competent authority which has been contacted by a competent authority of another Member State should have a general obligation to reply to the request submitted.
Splošna obveznost pristojnega organa, s katerim je pristojni organ druge države članice vzpostavil stik, bi morala biti, da odgovori na zaprosilo.
The contacting authority is encouraged to set a deadline within which the contacted authority should respond, if possible.
Organ, ki prvi vzpostavi stik, se vzpodbudi, da določi rok, v katerem bi moral organ, s katerim je vzpostavljen stik, odgovoriti.
The specific situation of a person deprived of liberty should be fully taken into account by the competent authorities throughout the procedure of taking contact.
Med celotnim postopkom vzpostavljanja stika bi moral pristojni organi v celoti upoštevati primere, kjer je v postopku osebi odvzeta prostost.
Direct contact between competent authorities should be the leading principle of cooperation established under this Framework Decision.
Vzpostavitev neposrednega stika med pristojnimi organi bi moralo biti vodilno načelo sodelovanja v okviru okvirnega sklepa.
Member States should have discretion to decide which authorities are competent to act in accordance with this Framework Decision, in compliance with the principle of national procedural autonomy, provided that such authorities have competence to intervene and decide accordingly with its provisions.
Države članice bi morale imeti možnost, da se odločijo, kateri organi so pristojni za ukrepanje v skladu s tem okvirnim sklepom, ob upoštevanju načela nacionalne postopkovne neodvisnosti, če so ti organi pristojni za posredovanje in odločanje v skladu z njegovimi določbami.
When striving to reach consensus on any effective solution aimed at avoiding the adverse consequences arising from parallel proceedings being conducted in two or more Member States, the competent authorities should take into account that each case is specific and give consideration to all its facts and merits.
Pristojni organi bi morali pri prizadevanjih za doseganje soglasja o učinkoviti rešitvi, da bi se izognili škodljivim posledicam vzporednih postopkov v dveh ali več državah članicah, upoštevati, da je vsak primer specifičen in bi morali preučiti vsa dejstva in dokaze v zvezi z njim.
In order to reach consensus, the competent authorities should consider relevant criteria, which may include those set out in the Guidelines which were published in the Eurojust Annual Report 2003 and which were drawn up for the needs of practitioners, and take into account for example the place where the major part of the criminality occurred, the place where the majority of the loss was sustained, the location of the suspected or accused person and possibilities for securing its surrender or extradition to other jurisdictions, the nationality or residence of the suspected or accused person, significant interests of the suspected or accused person, significant interests of victims and witnesses, the admissibility of evidence or any delays that may occur.
Da bi se doseglo soglasje, bi morali pristojni organi upoštevati ustrezna merila, med katerimi so lahko merila, opredeljena v smernicah, ki so bile objavljene v letnem poročilu Eurojusta za leto 2003 in so bile oblikovane za potrebe strokovnih delavcev, ter upoštevati na primer kraj, kjer se je zgodil večji del kaznivega dejanja, kraj, kjer je nastalo največ škode, kraj, kjer se nahaja osumljena oziroma obtožena oseba in možnosti, da se doseže njihova predaja ali izročitev drugim sodnim oblastem, državljanstvo ali prebivališče osumljene ali obtožene osebe, pomembni interesi osumljene ali obtožene osebe, pomembni interesi žrtev in prič, dopustnost dokazov ali kakršna koli zamuda, ki bi lahko nastala.
The obligation for competent authorities to enter into direct consultations in order to reach consensus in the context of this Framework Decision should not exclude the possibility that such direct consultations be conducted with the assistance of Eurojust.
Obveznost pristojnih organov za neposredno posvetovanje, z namenom doseči soglasje v skladu s tem okvirnim sklepom, ne bi smelo izključiti možnosti, da se to neposredno posvetovanje opravi ob pomoči Eurojusta.
No Member State should be obliged to waive or to exercise jurisdiction unless it wishes to do so.
Nobena država članica ne bi smela biti zavezana odložiti ali izvajati pristojnosti, razen če to želi.
As long as consensus on the concentration of criminal proceedings has not been reached, the competent authorities of the Member States should be able to continue criminal proceedings for any criminal offence which falls within their national jurisdiction.
Dokler soglasje o koncentraciji kazenskih postopkov ni doseženo, bi morali pristojni organi države članice imeti možnost, da nadaljujejo kazenske postopke za vsa kazniva dejanja, ki po nacionalnem pravu sodijo v okvir njihove pristojnosti.
Since the very aim of this Framework Decision is to prevent unnecessary parallel criminal proceedings which could result in an infringement of the principle of ne bis in idem, its application should not give rise to a conflict of exercise of jurisdiction which would not occur otherwise.
Cilj tega okvirnega sklepa je preprečiti, da bi se po nepotrebnem vodili vzporedni kazenski postopki, kar bi lahko pomenilo kršitev načela „ne bis in idem“, zato njegova uporaba ne bi smela povzročiti spora o izvajanju pristojnosti, ki sicer ne bi nastal.
In the common area of freedom, security and justice, the principle of mandatory prosecution, governing the law of procedure in several Member States, should be understood and applied in a way that it is deemed to be fulfilled when any Member State ensures the criminal prosecution of a particular criminal offence.
Na skupnem območju svobode, varnosti in pravice bi se moralo načelo obveznega pregona, ki ga ureja procesno pravo v več državah članicah, razlagati in uporabljati tako, da se šteje za uveljavljeno, če določena država članica poskrbi za kazenski pregon zaradi določenega kaznivega dejanja.
Where consensus has been reached on the concentration of criminal proceedings in one Member State, the competent authorities in the other Member State should act in a way that is compatible with that consensus.
Če je bilo o koncentraciji kazenskih postopkov v eni državi članici doseženo soglasje, bi morali pristojni organi v drugi državi članici ukrepati na način, ki je skladen s tem soglasjem.
As Eurojust is particularly well suited to provide assistance in resolving conflicts of jurisdiction, the referral of a case to Eurojust should be a usual step, when it has not been possible to reach consensus.
Eurojust je še posebej primeren za zagotavljanje pomoči pri reševanju sporov o pristojnosti, zato bi moral biti odstop zadeve Eurojustu običajen korak, kadar ni bilo mogoče doseči soglasja.
It should be noted that, in accordance with Article 13(7)(a) of Council Decision 2002/187/JHA of 28 February 2002 setting up Eurojust with a view to reinforcing the fight against serious crime [3] (the ‘Eurojust Decision’), as modified, most recently by Council Decision 2009/426/JHA of 16 December 2008 on the strengthening of Eurojust [4], Eurojust has to be informed of any case where conflicts of jurisdiction have arisen or are likely to arise and that a case can be referred to Eurojust at any moment if at least one competent authority involved in the direct consultations deems it appropriate.
Treba bi bilo poudariti, da mora biti v skladu s členom 13(7)(a) Sklepa Sveta 2002/187/PNZ z dne 28. februarja 2002 o ustanovitvi Eurojusta za okrepitev boja proti težjim oblikam kriminala [3] („sklep o Eurojustu“) kakor je bil nazadnje spremenjen s Sklepom Sveta 2009/426/PNZ z dne 16. decembra 2008 o okrepitvi Eurojusta [4], Eurojust obveščen o vseh zadevah, pri katerih je ali bi lahko prišlo do sporov o pristojnosti, in da se zadeva lahko kadar koli predloži Eurojustu, če vsaj eden od pristojnih organov, udeleženih v neposrednih posvetovanjih, presodi, da je to primerno.
This Framework Decision is without prejudice to proceedings under the European Convention on the Transfer of Proceedings in Criminal Matters, signed in Strasbourg on 15 May 1972, as well as any other arrangements concerning the transfer of proceedings in criminal matters between the Member States.
Ta okvirni sklep ne posega v postopke v skladu z Evropsko konvencijo o prenosu postopkov v kazenskih zadevah, podpisano v Strasbourgu dne 15. maja 1972, niti v druge ureditve o prenosu kazenskih postopkov med državami članicami.
This Framework Decision should not lead to an undue administrative burden in cases where for the problems addressed more suitable options are readily available.
Ta okvirni sklep ne bi smel povzročiti nepotrebnega upravnega bremena, kadar so na voljo ustreznejše alternativne možnosti.
Thus in situations where more flexible instruments or arrangements are in place between Member States, those should prevail over this Framework Decision.
V primerih, za katere so med državami članicami na voljo prožnejši instrumenti ali ureditve, bi morali ti imeti prednost pred tem okvirnim sklepom.
This Framework Decision is limited to establishing provisions on the exchange of information and direct consultations between the competent authorities of the Member States and therefore does not affect any right of individuals to argue that they should be prosecuted in their own or in another jurisdiction, if such right exists under national law.
Ta okvirni sklep je omejen na uveljavitev določb o izmenjavi informacij in neposrednem posvetovanju med pristojnimi organi držav članic in zato ne posega v kakršno koli pravico posameznikov, da lahko zagovarjajo svoj pregon v okviru svoje ali druge sodne oblasti, če taka pravica obstaja v nacionalni zakonodaji.
Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the protection of personal data processed in the framework of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters [5] should apply to the processing of personal data exchanged under this Framework Decision.
Okvirni sklep Sveta 2008/977/PNZ z dne 27. novembra 2008 o varstvu osebnih podatkov, ki se obdelujejo v okviru policijskega in pravosodnega sodelovanja v kazenskih zadevah [5], bi se moral uporabljati za obdelavo osebnih podatkov, ki se izmenjujejo v okviru tega okvirnega sklepa.
When making a declaration concerning the language regime, Member States are encouraged to include at least one language which is commonly used in the European Union other than their official language.
Ko države članice dajo izjavo o jezikovni ureditvi, naj poleg svojega uradnega jezika vanjo vključijo vsaj še en jezik, ki se običajno uporablja v Evropski uniji.
This Framework Decision respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised by Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union and reflected by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,
Ta okvirni sklep spoštuje temeljne pravice in upošteva načela, priznana v členu 6 Pogodbe o Evropski uniji in odražena v Listini o temeljnih pravicah Evropske unije –
The objective of this Framework Decision is to promote a closer cooperation between the competent authorities of two or more Member States conducting criminal proceedings, with a view to improving the efficient and proper administration of justice.
Cilj tega okvirnega sklepa je spodbujanje tesnejšega sodelovanja med pristojnimi organi dveh ali več držav članic, ki vodijo kazenske postopke, z namenom, da se izboljša učinkovito in pravično delovanje sodnega sistema.
Such closer cooperation aims to:
Cilj takega tesnejšega sodelovanja je:
prevent situations where the same person is subject to parallel criminal proceedings in different Member States in respect of the same facts, which might lead to the final disposal of the proceedings in two or more Member States thereby constituting an infringement of the principle of ‘ne bis in idem’; and
preprečiti primere, ko se zoper isto osebo vodi vzporeden kazenski postopek v različnih državah članicah na podlagi istih dejstev, kar lahko pripelje do dvojne pravnomočne odločbe v postopku v dveh ali več državah članicah in tako pomeni kršitev načela „ne bis in idem“, in
reach consensus on any effective solution aimed at avoiding the adverse consequences arising from such parallel proceedings.
doseči soglasje o vseh učinkovitih rešitvah s ciljem izogibanja škodljivih posledic, ki bi izhajale iz takih vzporednih postopkov.
With a view to achieving the objective set out in Article 1, this Framework Decision establishes a framework on:
Z namenom doseganja ciljev iz člena 1 ta okvirni sklep določa okvir za:
a procedure for establishing contact between the competent authorities of Member States, with a view to confirming the existence of parallel criminal proceedings in respect of the same facts involving the same person;
postopek za vzpostavitev stika med pristojnimi organi držav članic, zaradi potrditve obstoja vzporednih kazenskih postopkov na podlagi istih dejstev zoper isto osebo,
the exchange of information, through direct consultations, between the competent authorities of two or more Member States conducting parallel criminal proceedings in respect of the same facts involving the same person, in case they already have knowledge of the existence of parallel criminal proceedings, with a view to reaching consensus on any effective solution aimed at avoiding the adverse consequences arising from such parallel proceedings.
izmenjavo informacij, prek neposrednega posvetovanja, med pristojnimi organi dveh ali več držav članic, ki vodijo vzporedne kazenske postopke na podlagi istih dejstev zoper isto osebo, če že vedo za obstoj vzporednih kazenskih postopkov, da se doseže soglasje o učinkoviti rešitvi, s ciljem izogibanja škodljivih posledic, ki izhajajo iz takih vzporednih postopkov.
This Framework Decision shall not apply to proceedings which are covered by the terms of Articles 5 and 13 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty [6].
Ta okvirni sklep se ne uporablja za postopke, ki jih zajemata člena 5 in 13 Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 1/2003 z dne 16. decembra 2002 o izvajanju pravil konkurence iz členov 81 in 82 Pogodbe [6].
‘parallel proceedings’ means criminal proceedings, including both the pre-trial and the trial phases, which are conducted in two or more Member States concerning the same facts involving the same person;
„vzporedni postopki“ pomeni kazenske postopke, vključno s predkazenskim postopkom kot tudi s kazenskim postopkom, ki se vodi v dveh ali več državah članicah zoper isto osebo na podlagi istih dejstev;
‘competent authority’ means a judicial authority or another authority, which is competent, under the law of its Member State, to carry out the acts envisaged by Article 2(1) of this Framework Decision;
„pristojni organ“ pomeni sodni organ ali drug organ, ki je po zakonodaji svoje države članice pristojen za opravljanje dejanj, predvidenih v členu 2(1) tega okvirnega sklepa;
‘contacting authority’ means a competent authority of a Member State, which contacts a competent authority of another Member State to confirm the existence of parallel proceedings;
„organ, ki vzpostavi stik“ pomeni pristojni organ države članice, ki vzpostavi stik s pristojnim organom druge države članice, da se potrdi obstoj vzporednih postopkov;
‘contacted authority’ means the competent authority which is asked by a contacting authority to confirm the existence of parallel criminal proceedings.
„organ, s katerim je vzpostavljen stik“ pomeni pristojni organ, ki ga organ, ki vzpostavi stik, zaprosi, naj potrdi obstoj vzporednih kazenskih postopkov.
Determination of competent authorities
Določanje pristojnih organov
Member States shall determine the competent authorities in a way that promotes the principle of direct contact between authorities.
Države članice določijo pristojne organe tako, da se s tem spodbuja načelo neposrednega stika med organi.
In accordance with paragraph 1, each Member State shall inform the General Secretariat of the Council which authorities under its national law are competent to act in accordance with this Framework Decision.
Vsaka država članica v skladu z odstavkom 1 obvesti generalni sekretariat Sveta, kateri organi so po njeni nacionalni zakonodaji pristojni ukrepati v skladu s tem okvirnim sklepom.
Notwithstanding paragraphs 1 and 2, each Member State may designate, if it is necessary as a result of the organisation of its internal system, one or more central authorities responsible for the administrative transmission and reception of requests for information according to Article 5 and/or for the purpose of assisting the competent authorities in the consultation process.
Ne glede na odstavka 1 in 2 lahko vsaka država članica, če je zaradi organizacije njenega notranjega sistema potrebno, imenuje enega ali več osrednjih organov, odgovornih za upravni prenos in prejem zaprosil za informacije v skladu s členom 5 in/ali zaradi pomoči pristojnim organom v postopku posvetovanja.
Member States wishing to make use of the possibility to designate a central authority or authorities shall communicate this information to the General Secretariat of the Council.
Države članice, ki želijo izkoristiti možnost imenovanja osrednjega organa ali organov, to informacijo sporočijo generalnemu sekretariatu Sveta.
The General Secretariat of the Council shall make the information received under paragraphs 2 and 3 available to all Member States and to the Commission.
Generalni sekretariat Sveta informacije, prejete na podlagi odstavkov 2 in 3, da na voljo vsem državam članicam in Komisiji.
Obligation to contact
Obveznost vzpostavitve stika
When a competent authority of a Member State has reasonable grounds to believe that parallel proceedings are being conducted in another Member State, it shall contact the competent authority of that other Member State to confirm the existence of such parallel proceedings, with a view to initiating direct consultations as provided for in Article 10.
Če pristojni organ v državi članici utemeljeno domneva, da v drugi državi članici poteka vzporedni postopek, naveže stike s pristojnim organom te druge države članice, da se potrdi obstoj takšnih vzporednih postopkov in se lahko začne neposredno posvetovanje iz člena 10.
If the contacting authority does not know the identity of the competent authority to be contacted, it shall make all necessary inquiries, including via the contact points of the European Judicial Network, in order to obtain the details of that competent authority.
Če organ, ki vzpostavi stik, ne pozna identitete pristojnega organa, s katerim je treba vzpostaviti stik, opravi vse potrebne poizvedbe, vključno s poizvedbami prek kontaktnih točk Evropske pravosodne mreže, da pridobi podatke o tem pristojnem organu.
The procedure of contacting shall not apply when the competent authorities conducting parallel proceedings have already been informed of the existence of these proceedings by any other means.
Postopek vzpostavitve stika se ne uporabi, če so pristojni organi, ki vodijo vzporedne postopke, že na kakršen koli drug način obveščeni o obstoju takšnih postopkov.
Obligation to reply
Obveznost odgovora
The contacted authority shall reply to a request submitted in accordance with Article 5(1) within any reasonable deadline indicated by the contacting authority, or, if no deadline has been indicated, without undue delay, and inform the contacting authority whether parallel proceedings are taking place in its Member State.
Organ, s katerim je vzpostavljen stik, v razumnem roku, ki ga navede organ, ki vzpostavi stik, odgovori na zaprosilo, vloženo v skladu s členom 5(1), v primeru, ko rok ni bil naveden, pa odgovori brez neupravičenega odlašanja in organ, ki vzpostavi stik, obvesti, ali v zadevni državi članici poteka vzporeden postopek.
In cases where the contacting authority has informed the contacted authority that the suspected or accused person is held in provisional detention or custody, the latter authority shall treat the request as a matter of urgency.
Če organ, ki vzpostavi stik, obvesti organ, s katerim je vzpostavljen stik, da je osumljencu ali obtožencu začasno odvzeta prostost ali je v priporu, organ, s katerim je vzpostavljen stik, obravnava zaprosilo kot nujno.
If the contacted authority cannot provide a reply within any deadline set by the contacting authority, it shall promptly inform the contacting authority of the reasons thereof and indicate the deadline within which it shall provide the requested information.
Če organ, s katerim je vzpostavljen stik, odgovora ne more zagotoviti v roku, ki ga določi organ, ki vzpostavi stik, ta organ nemudoma obvesti o razlogih in navede rok, v katerem bo zagotovil zahtevane informacije.
If the authority which has been contacted by a contacting authority is not the competent authority under Article 4, it shall without undue delay transmit the request for information to the competent authority and shall inform the contacting authority accordingly.
Če organ, s katerim je navezal stike organ, ki vzpostavi stik, ni pristojni organ v skladu s členom 4, zaprosilo za informacije brez neupravičenega odlašanja posreduje pristojnemu organu in o tem ustrezno obvesti pristojni organ, ki je vzpostavil stik.
The contacting and contacted authorities shall communicate by any means whereby a written record can be produced.
Organ, ki vzpostavi stik, in organ, s katerimi je vzpostavljen stik, komunicirata na kakršen koli način, ki omogoča pisni zapis.
Minimum information to be provided in the request
Minimalne informacije, ki jih mora vsebovati zaprosilo
When submitting a request in accordance with Article 5, the contacting authority shall provide the following information:
Organ, ki vzpostavi stik, pri vlogi zaprosila v skladu s členom 5 posreduje naslednje informacije:
the contact details of the competent authority;
kontaktne podatke pristojnega organa;
a description of the facts and circumstances that are the subject of the criminal proceedings concerned;
opis dejstev in okoliščin, na podlagi katerih poteka zadevni kazenski postopek;
all relevant details about the identity of the suspected or accused person and about the victims, if applicable;
vse pomembne podatke o identiteti osumljenca ali obtoženca ter žrtev, če je to ustrezno;
the stage that has been reached in the criminal proceedings; and
informacije o fazi, v kateri se kazenski postopek nahaja, in
information about provisional detention or custody of the suspected or accused person, if applicable.
informacije o začasnem odvzemu prostosti ali priporu osumljenca ali obtoženca, če je to ustrezno.