natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Having regard to the initiative of the Kingdom of Belgium, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Republic of Estonia, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Austria, the Portuguese Republic, Romania, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden [1],
ob upoštevanju pobude Kraljevine Belgije, Zvezne republike Nemčije, Republike Estonije, Kraljevine Španije, Francoske republike, Italijanske republike, Velikega vojvodstva Luksemburg, Republike Madžarske, Republike Avstrije, Portugalske republike, Romunije, Republike Finske in Kraljevine Švedske [1],
The Union has set itself the objective of maintaining and developing an area of freedom, security and justice.
Unija si je zadala cilj ohraniti in razviti območje svobode, varnosti in pravice.
According to the Presidency Conclusions of the European Council in Tampere of 15 and 16 October 1999, and in particular point 33 thereof, the principle of mutual recognition of judgments and other decisions of judicial authorities should become the cornerstone of judicial cooperation in civil and criminal matters within the Union because enhanced mutual recognition and the necessary approximation of legislation would facilitate cooperation between competent authorities and the judicial protection of individual rights.
V skladu s sklepi predsedstva iz Evropskega sveta iz Tampereja z dne 15. in 16. oktobra 1999 ter zlasti s točko 33 teh sklepov bi moralo načelo vzajemnega priznavanja sodb in drugih odločitev sodnih organov postati temelj pravosodnega sodelovanja v civilnih in kazenskih zadevah v Uniji, ker bi okrepljeno vzajemno priznavanje ter potrebno približevanje zakonodaje izboljšalo sodelovanje med pristojnimi organi in sodno varstvo pravic posameznika.
On 29 November 2000, the Council, in accordance with the Tampere Conclusions, adopted a programme of measures to implement the principle of mutual recognition of decisions in criminal matters [3].
Svet je 29. novembra 2000 v skladu s sklepi iz Tampereja sprejel program ukrepov za izvajanje načela vzajemnega priznavanja odločb v kazenskih zadevah [3].
The introduction to the programme states that mutual recognition is ‘designed to strengthen cooperation between Member States but also to enhance the protection of individual rights’.
V uvodu programa je zapisano, da je namen vzajemnega priznavanja „okrepiti sodelovanje med državami članicami in povečati varstvo pravic posameznika“.
The implementation of the principle of mutual recognition of decisions in criminal matters presupposes that Member States have trust in each other’s criminal justice systems.
Izvajanje načela vzajemnega priznavanja odločb v kazenskih zadevah temelji na predpostavki, da države članice zaupajo v kazenskopravne sisteme drugih držav članic.
The extent of mutual recognition is very much dependent on a number of parameters, which include mechanisms for safeguarding the rights of suspected or accused persons and common minimum standards necessary to facilitate the application of the principle of mutual recognition.
Obseg vzajemnega priznavanja je v veliki meri odvisen od vrste parametrov, ki vključujejo mehanizme za zaščito pravic osumljencev ali obdolžencev in skupne minimalne standarde, potrebne za lažje izvajanje načela vzajemnega priznavanja.
Mutual recognition of decisions in criminal matters can operate effectively only in a spirit of trust in which not only judicial authorities but all actors in the criminal process consider decisions of the judicial authorities of other Member States as equivalent to their own, implying not only trust in the adequacy of other Member States’ rules, but also trust that those rules are correctly applied.
Vzajemno priznavanje odločb v kazenskih zadevah lahko učinkovito deluje le v duhu zaupanja, kjer ne le sodni organi, temveč vsi udeleženci kazenskega postopka, priznavajo odločbe sodnih organov drugih držav članic kot enakovredne svojim lastnim, kar pomeni ne le zaupanje v ustreznost pravil drugih držav članic, ampak tudi zaupanje v pravilno izvajanje teh pravil.
Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter the ECHR) and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (hereinafter the Charter) enshrine the right to a fair trial.
Člen 6 Evropske konvencije o varstvu človekovih pravic in temeljnih svoboščin (v nadaljnjem besedilu: EKČP) in člen 47 Listine Evropske unije o temeljnih pravicah (v nadaljnjem besedilu: Listina) zagotavljata pravico do poštenega sojenja.
Article 48(2) of the Charter guarantees respect for the right of defence.
Člen 48(2) Listine zagotavlja spoštovanje pravice do obrambe.
This Directive respects those rights and should be implemented accordingly.
Ta direktiva spoštuje te pravice in bi se jo zato moralo ustrezno izvajati.
Although all the Member States are party to the ECHR, experience has shown that that alone does not always provide a sufficient degree of trust in the criminal justice systems of other Member States.
Čeprav so vse države članice pogodbenice EKČP, izkušnje kažejo, da samo to vedno ne zagotavlja zadostne stopnje zaupanja v kazenskopravne sisteme drugih držav članic.
Strengthening mutual trust requires a more consistent implementation of the rights and guarantees set out in Article 6 of the ECHR.
Za okrepitev vzajemnega zaupanja je treba bolj dosledno izvajati pravice in jamstva iz člena 6 EKČP.
It also requires, by means of this Directive and other measures, further development within the Union of the minimum standards set out in the ECHR and the Charter.
Prav tako je treba s to direktivo in drugimi ukrepi v Uniji nadalje razviti minimalne standarde iz EKČP in Listine.
Article 82(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union provides for the establishment of minimum rules applicable in the Member States so as to facilitate mutual recognition of judgments and judicial decisions and police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters having a cross-border dimension.
Člen 82(2) Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije določa, da se določijo minimalna pravila, ki se uporabljajo v državah članicah in ki olajšajo vzajemno priznavanje sodb in sodnih odločb ter policijsko in pravosodno sodelovanje v kazenskih zadevah s čezmejnimi posledicami.
Point (b) of the second subparagraph of Article 82(2) refers to ‘the rights of individuals in criminal procedure’ as one of the areas in which minimum rules may be established.
Točka (b) drugega pododstavka člena 82(2) določa, da so „pravice posameznikov v kazenskem postopku“ eno izmed področij, na katerem se lahko uvedejo minimalna pravila.
Common minimum rules should lead to increased confidence in the criminal justice systems of all Member States, which, in turn, should lead to more efficient judicial cooperation in a climate of mutual trust.
Skupna minimalna pravila bi morala pomeniti, da se bo povečalo zaupanje v kazenskopravne sisteme vseh držav članic, kar bi moralo v zameno pripeljati do bolj učinkovitega pravosodnega sodelovanja v duhu vzajemnega zaupanja.
Such common minimum rules should be established in the fields of interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings.
Takšna skupna minimalna pravila bi bilo treba določiti na področju tolmačenja in prevajanja v kazenskih postopkih.
On 30 November 2009, the Council adopted a resolution on a Roadmap for strengthening procedural rights of suspected or accused persons in criminal proceedings [4].
Svet je 30. novembra 2009 sprejel resolucijo o načrtu za krepitev procesnih pravic osumljenih ali obtoženih oseb v kazenskih postopkih [4].
Taking a step-by-step approach, the Roadmap called for the adoption of measures regarding the right to translation and interpretation (measure A), the right to information on rights and information about the charges (measure B), the right to legal advice and legal aid (measure C), the right to communication with relatives, employers and consular authorities (measure D), and special safeguards for suspected or accused persons who are vulnerable (measure E).
Načrt predvideva postopne korake za sprejetje ukrepov v zvezi s pravico do prevajanja in tolmačenja (ukrep A), pravico do informacij o pravicah in obtožnici (ukrep B), pravico do pravnega nasveta in pravne pomoči (ukrep C), pravico do komuniciranja s sorodniki, delodajalci in konzularnimi organi (ukrep D) ter v zvezi s posebnim varstvom za osumljence ali obtožence, ki spadajo v skupino ranljivih oseb (ukrep E).
In the Stockholm programme, adopted on 10 December 2009, the European Council welcomed the Roadmap and made it part of the Stockholm programme (point 2.4).
Evropski svet je v stockholmskem programu, ki je bil sprejet 10. decembra 2009, pozdravil načrt in ga vključil v stockholmski program (točka 2.4).
The European Council underlined the non-exhaustive character of the Roadmap, by inviting the Commission to examine further elements of minimum procedural rights for suspected and accused persons, and to assess whether other issues, for instance the presumption of innocence, need to be addressed, in order to promote better cooperation in that area.
Evropski svet je poudaril, da načrt ni izčrpen, ter pozval Komisijo, naj še dodatno preuči elemente minimalnih procesnih pravic osumljenih ali obtoženih oseb, in oceni, ali je treba za boljše sodelovanje na tem področju preučiti tudi druga vprašanja, na primer domnevo nedolžnosti.
This Directive relates to measure A of the Roadmap.
Ta direktiva se nanaša na ukrep A iz načrta.
It lays down common minimum rules to be applied in the fields of interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings with a view to enhancing mutual trust among Member States.
Določa skupna minimalna pravila, ki jih je treba uporabljati pri tolmačenju in prevajanju v kazenskih postopkih z namenom krepitve medsebojnega zaupanja med državami članicami.
This Directive draws on the Commission proposal for a Council Framework Decision on the right to interpretation and to translation in criminal proceedings of 8 July 2009, and on the Commission proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings of 9 March 2010.
Ta direktiva črpa iz predloga Komisije za okvirni sklep Sveta o pravici do tolmačenja in prevajanja v kazenskih postopkih z dne 8. julija 2009 in iz predloga Komisije za direktivo Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta o pravici do tolmačenja in prevajanja v kazenskih postopkih z dne 9. marca 2010.
The right to interpretation and translation for those who do not speak or understand the language of the proceedings is enshrined in Article 6 of the ECHR, as interpreted in the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights.
Pravica do tolmačenja in prevajanja za osebe, ki ne govorijo ali razumejo jezika postopka, je določena v členu 6 EKČP, kakor ga razlaga sodna praksa Evropskega sodišča za človekove pravice.
This Directive facilitates the application of that right in practice.
Ta direktiva omogoča lažje uveljavljanje te pravice v praksi.
To that end, the aim of this Directive is to ensure the right of suspected or accused persons to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings with a view to ensuring their right to a fair trial.
V zvezi s tem je cilj te direktive osumljencem ali obdolžencem zagotoviti pravico do tolmačenja in prevajanja v kazenskem postopku z namenom zagotovitve njihove pravice do poštenega sojenja.
The rights provided for in this Directive should also apply, as necessary accompanying measures, to the execution of a European arrest warrant [5] within the limits provided for by this Directive.
Pravice, ki jih določa ta direktiva, bi se morale uporabljati kot nujni spremljajoči ukrepi tudi pri izvrševanju evropskega naloga za prijetje [5] v mejah, določenih v tej direktivi.
Executing Members States should provide, and bear the costs of, interpretation and translation for the benefit of the requested persons who do not speak or understand the language of the proceedings.
Izvršitvene države članice bi morale zagotoviti tolmačenje in prevajanje za zahtevano osebo, ki ne govori ali razume jezika postopka, ter kriti s tem povezane stroške.
In some Member States an authority other than a court having jurisdiction in criminal matters has competence for imposing sanctions in relation to relatively minor offences.
V nekaterih državah članicah je organ, ki ni sodišče, pristojno za kazenske zadeve, pristojen naložiti sankcije za relativno manjše kršitve.
That may be the case, for example, in relation to traffic offences which are committed on a large scale and which might be established following a traffic control.
To se lahko zgodi, na primer, pri ponavljajočih se prometnih prekrških, ki se lahko ugotovijo pri opravljanju kontrol v prometu.
In such situations, it would be unreasonable to require that the competent authority ensure all the rights under this Directive.
V takih okoliščinah se od pristojnega organa ne bi smelo zahtevati, da zagotovi spoštovanje vseh pravic iz te direktive.
Where the law of a Member State provides for the imposition of a sanction regarding minor offences by such an authority and there is a right of appeal to a court having jurisdiction in criminal matters, this Directive should therefore apply only to the proceedings before that court following such an appeal.
Kadar pravo države članice določa, da sankcije za manjše kršitve naloži tak organ in da je možna pritožba na sodišče, pristojno za kazenske zadeve, bi se ta direktiva morala zato uporabljati le za postopke pred tem sodiščem po vloženi pritožbi.
This Directive should ensure that there is free and adequate linguistic assistance, allowing suspected or accused persons who do not speak or understand the language of the criminal proceedings fully to exercise their right of defence and safeguarding the fairness of the proceedings.
Ta direktiva bi morala zagotavljati brezplačno in ustrezno jezikovno pomoč ter osumljencem ali obdolžencem, ki ne govorijo ali razumejo jezika, v katerem poteka kazenski postopek, omogočiti, da v polni meri uveljavljajo pravico do obrambe, in jim zagotoviti pravičen postopek.
Interpretation for the benefit of the suspected or accused persons should be provided without delay.
Tolmačenje za osumljence ali obdolžence bi moralo biti zagotovljeno nemudoma.
However, where a certain period of time elapses before interpretation is provided, that should not constitute an infringement of the requirement that interpretation be provided without delay, as long as that period of time is reasonable in the circumstances.
Vendar pa, kadar preteče nekaj časa, preden je tolmačenje zagotovljeno, to ne bi smelo pomeniti kršitve zahteve po zagotovitvi tolmačenja brez zamude, kadar je dolžina tega časa glede na okoliščine razumljiva.
Communication between suspected or accused persons and their legal counsel should be interpreted in accordance with this Directive.
Komuniciranje med osumljenci ali obdolženci in njihovimi pravnimi svetovalci bi bilo treba tolmačiti v skladu s to direktivo.
Suspected or accused persons should be able, inter alia, to explain their version of the events to their legal counsel, point out any statements with which they disagree and make their legal counsel aware of any facts that should be put forward in their defence.
Osumljenci ali obdolženci bi med drugim morali imeti možnost svojim pravnim svetovalcem pojasniti svojo različico dogodkov, opozoriti na izjave, s katerimi se ne strinjajo, in ga seznaniti z dejstvi, ki bi se morala predložiti pri njihovi obrambi.
For the purposes of the preparation of the defence, communication between suspected or accused persons and their legal counsel in direct connection with any questioning or hearing during the proceedings, or with the lodging of an appeal or other procedural applications, such as an application for bail, should be interpreted where necessary in order to safeguard the fairness of the proceedings.
Za namene priprave obrambe bi bilo treba tolmačiti komuniciranje med osumljenci ali obdolženci in njihovimi pravnimi svetovalci, kadar je vsebina pogovora neposredno povezana s kakršnim koli zaslišanjem med postopkom, z vložitvijo pritožbe ali drugih prošenj v postopku, kot je prošnja za varščino, kadar je to potrebno za zagotovitev pravičnega postopka.
Member States should ensure that there is a procedure or mechanism in place to ascertain whether suspected or accused persons speak and understand the language of the criminal proceedings and whether they need the assistance of an interpreter.
Države članice bi morale zagotoviti, da je vzpostavljen postopek ali mehanizem za ugotavljanje, ali osumljenci ali obdolženci govorijo in razumejo jezik kazenskega postopka ter ali potrebujejo pomoč tolmača.
Such procedure or mechanism implies that competent authorities verify in any appropriate manner, including by consulting the suspected or accused persons concerned, whether they speak and understand the language of the criminal proceedings and whether they need the assistance of an interpreter.
Takšen postopek ali mehanizem predvideva, da pristojni organi na kakršen koli ustrezen način preverijo, ali osumljenci ali obdolženci govorijo in razumejo jezik kazenskega postopka ter ali potrebujejo pomoč tolmača, in sicer tudi tako, da se z njimi pogovorijo.
Interpretation and translation under this Directive should be provided in the native language of the suspected or accused persons or in any other language that they speak or understand in order to allow them fully to exercise their right of defence, and in order to safeguard the fairness of the proceedings.
Tolmačenje in prevajanje v skladu s to direktivo bi moralo biti zagotovljeno v maternem jeziku osumljencev ali obdolžencev ali v katerem koli drugem jeziku, ki ga govorijo ali razumejo, da se jim omogoči, da v polni meri uveljavljajo svojo pravico do obrambe in da se zagotovi pravičnost postopka.
The respect for the right to interpretation and translation contained in this Directive should not compromise any other procedural right provided under national law.
Spoštovanje pravice do tolmačenja in prevajanja iz te direktive ne bi smelo posegati v nobeno drugo procesno pravico, ki jo zagotavlja nacionalno pravo.
Member States should ensure that control can be exercised over the adequacy of the interpretation and translation provided when the competent authorities have been put on notice in a given case.
Države članice bi morale zagotoviti izvajanje nadzora nad ustreznostjo zagotovljenega tolmačenja in prevajanja, kadar so bili pristojni organi za določen primer opozorjeni.
The suspected or accused persons or the persons subject to proceedings for the execution of a European arrest warrant should have the right to challenge the finding that there is no need for interpretation, in accordance with procedures in national law.
Osumljenci ali obdolženci ali osebe, ki so v postopku za izvrševanje evropskega naloga za prijetje, bi morale imeti pravico do ugovora odločitvi, da tolmačenje ni potrebno, v skladu s postopki iz nacionalnega prava.
That right does not entail the obligation for Member States to provide for a separate mechanism or complaint procedure in which such finding may be challenged and should not prejudice the time limits applicable to the execution of a European arrest warrant.
Ta pravica ne pomeni, da so države članice dolžne zagotoviti ločeni mehanizem ali pritožbeni postopek, prek katerega bi se lahko ugovarjalo takšni odločitvi, in ne posega v časovne roke, ki veljajo pri izvrševanju evropskega naloga za prijetje.
When the quality of the interpretation is considered insufficient to ensure the right to a fair trial, the competent authorities should be able to replace the appointed interpreter.
Kadar je ocenjeno, da kakovost tolmačenja ni dovolj visoka, da bi zagotavljala pravico do poštenega sojenja, bi moral biti pristojni organ zmožen zamenjati imenovanega tolmača.
The duty of care towards suspected or accused persons who are in a potentially weak position, in particular because of any physical impairments which affect their ability to communicate effectively, underpins a fair administration of justice.
Dolžnost skrbeti za osumljence ali obdolžence v morebitno slabšem položaju, zlasti zaradi fizične prizadetosti, ki vpliva na njihovo zmožnost učinkovitega sporazumevanja, je podlaga za pravično sojenje.
The prosecution, law enforcement and judicial authorities should therefore ensure that such persons are able to exercise effectively the rights provided for in this Directive, for example by taking into account any potential vulnerability that affects their ability to follow the proceedings and to make themselves understood, and by taking appropriate steps to ensure those rights are guaranteed.
Tožilstvo, organi pregona in sodni organi bi zato morali zagotoviti, da take osebe lahko učinkovito uveljavljajo pravice, ki izhajajo iz te direktive, na primer tako, da se upošteva morebitna ranljivost, ki vpliva na njihovo zmožnost spremljanja postopka in njihovo razumljenost, ter da sprejmejo ustrezne ukrepe za zagotovitev teh pravic.
When using videoconferencing for the purpose of remote interpretation, the competent authorities should be able to rely on the tools that are being developed in the context of European e-Justice (e.g. information on courts with videoconferencing equipment or manuals).
Kadar se za namene tolmačenja na daljavo uporablja videokonferenca, bi morali imeti pristojni organi možnost uporabiti orodja, ki se jih razvija v okviru evropskega e-pravosodja (na primer informacije o sodiščih, ki imajo opremo ali naprave za izvedbo videokonference).
This Directive should be evaluated in the light of the practical experience gained.
To direktivo bi bilo treba oceniti na podlagi pridobljenih praktičnih izkušenj.
If appropriate, it should be amended so as to improve the safeguards which it lays down.
Če je to potrebno, bi jo bilo treba spremeniti, da se izboljšajo zaščitni ukrepi, ki jih določa.
Safeguarding the fairness of the proceedings requires that essential documents, or at least the relevant passages of such documents, be translated for the benefit of suspected or accused persons in accordance with this Directive.
Za zagotovitev pravičnosti postopka bi bilo treba v skladu s to direktivo za osumljence ali obdolžence prevesti bistvene dokumente ali vsaj bistvene dele takšnih dokumentov.
Certain documents should always be considered essential for that purpose and should therefore be translated, such as any decision depriving a person of his liberty, any charge or indictment, and any judgment.
Določeni dokumenti bi v ta namen vedno morali veljati za bistvene, zato bi jih bilo treba prevesti, denimo, vsako odločbo o odvzemu prostosti zadevni osebi, vsako obtožnico in vsako sodbo.
It is for the competent authorities of the Member States to decide, on their own motion or upon a request of suspected or accused persons or of their legal counsel, which other documents are essential to safeguard the fairness of the proceedings and should therefore be translated as well.
Pristojni organi držav članic bi morali odločiti na lastno pobudo ali na zahtevo osumljencev ali obdolžencev ali njihovega pravnega svetovalca, kateri drugi dokumenti so prav tako bistveni za zagotovitev pravičnega postopka in bi jih zato bilo treba prevesti.
Member States should facilitate access to national databases of legal translators and interpreters where such databases exist.
Države članice bi morale poenostaviti dostop do nacionalnih registrov o sodnih tolmačih in prevajalcih, kadar takšni registri obstajajo.
In that context, particular attention should be paid to the aim of providing access to existing databases through the e-Justice portal, as planned in the multiannual European e-Justice action plan 2009-2013 of 27 November 2008 [6].
S tem v zvezi bi bilo treba posebno pozornost nameniti lažjemu dostopu do obstoječih registrov prek portala e-pravosodja, kakor je predvideno v Večletnem akcijskem načrtu 2009–2013 o evropskem e-pravosodju z dne 27. novembra 2008 [6].
This Directive should set minimum rules.
Ta direktiva bi morala predpisovati minimalna pravila.