natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The court should be allowed to stay the proceedings if in the case of use of financial resources provided by a third party:
Sodišču bi moralo biti dovoljeno, da postopek ustavi, če v primeru uporabe finančnih sredstev, ki jih zagotovi tretja oseba:
there is a conflict of interest between the third party and the claimant party and its members;
obstaja navzkrižje interesov med tretjo osebo ter tožnikom in člani njegovega kolektiva;
the third party has insufficient resources in order to meet its financial commitments to the claimant party initiating the collective redress procedure;
tretja oseba nima zadostnih sredstev za izpolnitev finančnih obveznosti do tožnika, ki je začel postopek s kolektivnim pravnim sredstvom;
the claimant party has insufficient resources to meet any adverse costs should the collective redress procedure fail.
tožnik nima zadostnih sredstev za poplačilo stroškov nasprotne stranke, če v postopku s kolektivno tožbo ne bi uspel.
The Member States should ensure, that in cases where an action for collective redress is funded by a private third party, it is prohibited for the private third party:
Države članice bi morale zagotoviti, da je v primerih, ko kolektivno tožbo financira tretja oseba, ki je oseba zasebnega prava, prepovedano, da bi takšna tretja oseba:
to seek to influence procedural decisions of the claimant party, including on settlements;
skušala odločilno vplivati na procesne odločitve tožnika, vključno z odločitvami za poravnavo;
to provide financing for a collective action against a defendant who is a competitor of the fund provider or against a defendant on whom the fund provider is dependant;
financirala kolektivno tožbo zoper tožnika, ki je konkurent financerja, ali zoper tožnika, od katerega je financer odvisen;
to charge excessive interest on the funds provided.
za zagotovljena finančna sredstva zaračunala previsoke obresti.
The Member States should ensure that where a dispute concerns natural or legal persons from several Member States, a single collective action in a single forum is not prevented by national rules on admissibility or standing of the foreign groups of claimants or the representative entities originating from other national legal systems.
Države članice bi morale zagotoviti, da pri sporih, ki se nanašajo na fizične ali pravne osebe iz več držav članic, nacionalna pravila o dopustnosti ali procesnem upravičenju tujih skupin tožnikov ali zastopniških subjektov iz drugih nacionalnih pravnih sistemov ne preprečujejo skupne kolektivne tožbe pred enim sodiščem.
Any representative entity that has been officially designated in advance by a Member State to have standing to bring representative actions should be permitted to seize the court in the Member State having jurisdiction to consider the mass harm situation.
Vsakemu zastopniškemu subjektu, ki mu je država članica predhodno uradno priznala procesno upravičenje za vložitev zastopniških tožb, bi moralo biti dovoljeno, da se obrne na sodišče v državi članici, ki ima pristojnost za odločanje v primeru množičnega oškodovanja.
SPECIFIC PRINCIPLES RELATING TO INJUNCTIVE COLLECTIVE REDRESS
POSEBNA NAČELA V ZVEZI S KOLEKTIVNIMI OPUSTITVENIMI TOŽBAMI
Expedient procedures for claims for injunctive orders
Hitri postopki za zahtevke za opustitvene odredbe
The courts and the competent public authorities should treat claims for injunctive orders requiring cessation of or prohibiting a violation of rights granted under Union law with all due expediency, where appropriate by way of summary proceedings, in order to prevent any or further harm causing damage because of such violation.
Sodišča in pristojni javni organi bi morali zahtevke za opustitvene odredbe, s katerimi se zahteva ustavitev ali prepoved kršitve pravic iz prava Unije, obravnavati z zahtevano nujnostjo in po potrebi v okviru skrajšanega postopka, da se prepreči morebitno nadaljnje oškodovanje zaradi take kršitve.
Efficient enforcement of injunctive orders
Učinkovito izvrševanje opustitvenih odredb
The Member States should establish appropriate sanctions against the losing defendant with a view to ensuring the effective compliance with the injunctive order, including the payments of a fixed amount for each day’s delay or any other amount provided for in national legislation.
Države članice bi morale predpisati ustrezne sankcije za toženca, ki v postopku ne uspe, da se zagotovi učinkovito upoštevanje opustitvene odredbe, vključno s plačilom fiksnega zneska za vsak dan zamude ali drugega zneska, določenega z nacionalno zakonodajo.
V. SPECIFIC PRINCIPLES RELATING TO COMPENSATORY COLLECTIVE REDRESS
V. POSEBNA NAČELA V ZVEZI S KOLEKTIVNIMI ODŠKODNINSKIMI TOŽBAMI
Constitution of the claimant party by ‘opt-in’ principle
Sestava kolektiva tožnika po načelu „privolitve“
The claimant party should be formed on the basis of express consent of the natural or legal persons claiming to have been harmed (‘opt-in’ principle).
Kolektiv tožnika bi moral biti sestavljen na podlagi izrecnega soglasja fizičnih ali pravnih oseb, ki trdijo, da so bile oškodovane (načelo „privolitve“).
Any exception to this principle, by law or by court order, should be duly justified by reasons of sound administration of justice.
Vsako izjemo od tega pravila, na podlagi zakona ali po odredbi sodišča, morajo upravičevati razlogi ustreznosti sodnega varstva.
A member of the claimant party should be free to leave the claimant party at any time before the final judgement is given or the case is otherwise validly settled, subject to the same conditions that apply to withdrawal in individual actions, without being deprived of the possibility to pursue its claims in another form, if this does not undermine the sound administration of justice.
Član kolektiva tožnika bi moral imeti možnost, da tožnika zapusti kadar koli pred izrekom dokončne sodbe ali drugačne rešitve zadeve, pod enakimi pogoji, kot veljajo za umik individualnih tožb, ne da bi izgubil možnost, da svoje zahtevke uveljavlja v drugačni obliki, če to ne slabi ustreznosti sodnega varstva.
Natural or legal persons claiming to have been harmed in the same mass harm situation should be able to join the claimant party at any time before the judgement is given or the case is otherwise validly settled, if this does not undermine the sound administration of justice.
Fizičnim ali pravnim osebam, ki trdijo, da so bile oškodovane v istem primeru množičnega oškodovanja, bi bilo treba omogočiti, da se tožniku pridružijo kadar koli pred izrekom sodbe ali drugačno rešitvijo zadeve, če to ne slabi ustreznosti sodnega varstva.
The defendant should be informed about the composition of the claimant party and about any changes therein.
Toženec bi moral biti obveščen o sestavi kolektiva tožnika in vseh spremembah te sestave.
Collective alternative dispute resolution and settlements
Kolektivno alternativno reševanje sporov in kolektivne poravnave
The Member States should ensure that the parties to a dispute in a mass harm situation are encouraged to settle the dispute about compensation consensually or out-of-court, both at the pre-trial stage and during civil trial, taking also into account the requirements of Directive 2008/52/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on certain aspects of mediation in civil and commercial matters [8].
Države članice bi morale zagotoviti, da se stranki v sporu zaradi množičnega oškodovanja spodbudita k sporazumni ali izvensodni rešitvi spora o odškodnini, tako v fazi pred obravnavo kot tudi med civilnim postopkom, pri čemer je treba upoštevati tudi zahteve iz Direktive 2008/52/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 21. maja 2008 o nekaterih vidikih mediacije v civilnih in gospodarskih zadevah [8].
The Member States should ensure that judicial collective redress mechanisms are accompanied by appropriate means of collective alternative dispute resolution available to the parties before and throughout the litigation.
Države članice bi morale zagotoviti, da mehanizme kolektivnih pravnih sredstev spremljajo ustrezna sredstva kolektivnega alternativnega reševanja sporov, ki so strankama na voljo med sodnim postopkom in po njem.
Use of such means should depend on the consent of the parties involved in the case.
Uporaba takih sredstev bi morala biti odvisna od soglasja strank, udeleženih v zadevi.
Any limitation period applicable to the claims should be suspended during the period from the moment the parties agree to attempt to resolve the dispute by means of an alternative dispute resolution procedure until at least the moment at which one or both parties expressly withdraw from that alternative dispute resolution procedure.
Vsak zastaralni rok v zvezi z zahtevki bi moral biti prekinjen od trenutka, ko se stranki dogovorita, da bosta spor skušali rešiti v postopku alternativnega reševanja sporov, pa vsaj do trenutka, ko se ena ali obe stranki izrecno umakneta iz navedenega postopka alternativnega reševanja spora.
The legality of the binding outcome of a collective settlement should be verified by the courts taking into consideration the appropriate protection of interests and rights of all parties involved.
Zakonitost zavezujočega izida kolektivne poravnave bi morala preverjati sodišča, ob upoštevanju ustreznega varstva interesov in pravic vseh udeleženih strank.
Legal representation and lawyers’ fees
Pravno zastopanje in odvetniške nagrade
The Member States should ensure that the lawyers’ remuneration and the method by which it is calculated do not create any incentive to litigation that is unnecessary from the point of view of the interest of any of the parties.
Države članice bi morale zagotoviti, da odvetniške nagrade in metoda, po kateri se izračunajo, ne spodbujajo sodnih sporov, ki z vidika interesov katere koli od strank niso nujni.
The Member States should not permit contingency fees which risk creating such an incentive.
Države članice ne bi smele dovoliti odvetniških nagrad, vezanih na višino odškodnine, ki bi lahko povzročile take spodbude.
The Member States that exceptionally allow for contingency fees should provide for appropriate national regulation of those fees in collective redress cases, taking into account in particular the right to full compensation of the members of the claimant party.
Države članice, ki izjemoma dovoljujejo takšne nagrade, bi morale zagotoviti ustrezno nacionalno ureditev navedenih nagrad v zadevah na podlagi kolektivnih pravnih sredstev, pri čemer bi bilo treba zlasti upoštevati pravico članov kolektiva tožnika do polnega nadomestila.
Prohibition of punitive damages
Prepoved kaznovalnih odškodnin
The compensation awarded to natural or legal persons harmed in a mass harm situation should not exceed the compensation that would have been awarded, if the claim had been pursued by means of individual actions.
Nadomestilo, dodeljeno fizičnim ali pravnim osebam, oškodovanim v primeru množičnega oškodovanja, ne bi smelo biti višje od nadomestila, ki bi bilo dodeljeno, če bi se zahtevek uveljavljal z individualnimi tožbami.
In particular, punitive damages, leading to overcompensation in favour of the claimant party of the damage suffered, should be prohibited.
Zlasti bi morale biti prepovedane kaznovalne odškodnine, ki bi pripeljale do previsokega nadomestila tožniku za utrpelo škodo.
Funding of compensatory collective redress
Financiranje kolektivnih odškodninskih tožb
The Member States should ensure, that, in addition to the general principles of funding, for cases of private third party funding of compensatory collective redress, it is prohibited to base remuneration given to or interest charged by the fund provider on the amount of the settlement reached or the compensation awarded unless that funding arrangement is regulated by a public authority to ensure the interests of the parties.
Kadar kolektivne odškodninske tožbe financira tretja oseba, ki je oseba zasebnega prava, bi morale države članice zagotoviti, da je poleg splošnih načel financiranja prepovedano, da bi bili plačilo financerju ali obresti, ki jih ta zaračuna, odvisni od zneska dosežene poravnave ali dodeljenega nadomestila, razen če tako ureditev financiranja nadzoruje javni organ, da se zavarujejo interesi strank.
Collective follow-on actions
Kolektivne nadaljnje tožbe
The Member States should ensure that in fields of law where a public authority is empowered to adopt a decision finding that there has been a violation of Union law, collective redress actions should, as a general rule, only start after any proceedings of the public authority, which were launched before commencement of the private action, have been concluded definitively.
Na pravnih področjih, na katerih je javni organ pristojen za sprejetje odločbe o kršitvi prava Unije, bi morale države članice zagotoviti, da se kolektivne tožbe praviloma začnejo šele po tem, ko so končani vsi postopki javnega organa, ki so se začeli pred vložitvijo zasebne tožbe.
If the proceedings of the public authority are launched after the commencement of the collective redress action, the court should avoid giving a decision which would conflict with a decision contemplated by the public authority.
Če se postopek javnega organa začne po vložitvi kolektivne tožbe, bi se moralo sodišče izogibati sprejetju odločitve v nasprotju z odločbo, ki jo namerava sprejeti javni organ.
To that end, the court may stay the collective redress action until the proceedings of the public authority have been concluded.
Sodišče lahko v ta namen prekine postopek s kolektivno tožbo, dokler ni končan postopek javnega organa.
The Member States should ensure that in the case of follow-on actions, the persons who claim to have been harmed are not prevented from seeking compensation due to the expiry of limitation or prescription periods before the definitive conclusion of the proceedings by the public authority.
Države članice bi morale zagotoviti, da v zadevi na podlagi kolektivne nadaljnje tožbe osebe, ki trdijo, da so bile oškodovane, zaradi izteka prekluzivnih ali zastaralnih rokov ne izgubijo možnosti uveljavljanja odškodninskih zahtevkov pred koncem postopka javnega organa.
Registry of collective redress actions
Register kolektivnih tožb
The Member States should establish a national registry of collective redress actions.
Države članice bi morale vzpostaviti nacionalni register kolektivnih tožb.
The national registry should be available free of charge to any interested person through electronic means and otherwise.
Nacionalni register bi moral biti vsem zainteresiranim strankam na voljo brezplačno v elektronski ali drugačni obliki.
Websites publishing the registries should provide access to comprehensive and objective information on the available methods of obtaining compensation, including out of court methods.
Na spletiščih, na katerih so objavljeni registri, bi moral biti zagotovljen dostop do celovitih in nepristranskih informacij o mehanizmih, ki so na voljo za pridobitev nadomestila, vključno z izvensodnimi mehanizmi.
The Member States, assisted by the Commission should endeavour to ensure coherence of the information gathered in the registries and their interoperability.
Države članice bi si morale ob pomoči Komisije prizadevati za usklajenost informacij, zbranih v registrih, in njihovo povezljivost.
SUPERVISION AND REPORTING
NADZOR IN POROČANJE
The Member States should implement the principles set out in this Recommendation in national collective redress systems by 26 July 2015 at the latest.
Države članice bi morale načela iz tega priporočila v nacionalne sisteme kolektivnih pravnih sredstev uvesti najpozneje do 26. julija 2015.
The Member States should collect reliable annual statistics on the number of out-of-court and judicial collective redress procedures and information about the parties, the subject matter and outcome of the cases.
Države članice bi morale zbirati zanesljive letne statistične podatke o številu izvensodnih in sodnih postopkov s kolektivnimi pravnimi sredstvi ter informacije o strankah, vsebini in izidu zadev.
The Member States should communicate the information collected in accordance with point 39 to the Commission on an annual basis and for the first time by 26 July 2016 at the latest.
Države članice bi morale informacije, zbrane v skladu s točko 39, vsako leto sporočiti Komisiji, prvič najpozneje do 26. julija 2016.
In this context, the Commission should in particular evaluate its impact on access to justice, on the right to obtain compensation, on the need to prevent abusive litigation and on the functioning of the single market, on SMEs, the competitiveness of the economy of the European Union and consumer trust.
V okviru tega bi morala zlasti oceniti njegov učinek na dostop do sodnega varstva, pravico do odškodnine, potrebo po preprečitvi nepoštenega pravdanja ter na delovanje enotnega trga, MSP, konkurenčnost gospodarstva Evropske unije in zaupanje potrošnikov.
The Commission should assess also whether further measures to consolidate and strengthen the horizontal approach reflected in the Recommendation should be proposed.
Ob tem bi morala tudi oceniti, ali bi bilo treba predlagati nadaljnje ukrepe za utrditev in okrepitev horizontalnega pristopa, izraženega v priporočilu.
The Recommendation should be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.
Priporočilo bi moralo biti objavljeno v Uradnem listu Evropske unije.
2011/2089(INI).
2011/2089(INI)
The Commission should assess the implementation of the Recommendation on the basis of practical experience by 26 July 2017 at the latest.
Komisija bi morala oceniti izvajanje priporočila na podlagi praktičnih izkušenj najpozneje do 26. julija 2017.
In 2008 the Commission published a Green Paper on consumer collective redress [3]. In 2011 the Commission carried out a public consultation ‘Towards a more coherent European approach to collective redress’ [4].
Leta 2008 je objavila zeleno knjigo o kolektivnih odškodninah za potrošnike [3], v letu 2011 pa je izvedla javno posvetovanje z naslovom „Za skladnejši evropski pristop h kolektivnim pravnim sredstvom“ [4].
The Member States should report to the Commission on the implementation of this Recommendation. Based on this reporting, the Commission should monitor and assess the measures taken by Member States.
Države članice bi morale Komisiji poročati o izvajanju tega priporočila, Komisija pa bi morala na podlagi njihovega poročanja spremljati in ocenjevati ukrepe, ki so jih sprejele države članice.
on the principles governing SOLVIT
o načelih, ki urejajo mrežo Solvit
Article 26 of the TFEU defines the internal market as an area without internal borders in which the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital is ensured.
V členu 26 Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije (v nadaljnjem besedilu: PDEU) je notranji trg opredeljen kot območje brez notranjih meja, na katerem je zagotovljen prost pretok blaga, oseb, storitev in kapitala.
Article 4, paragraph 3 of the TEU requires Member States to take any appropriate steps to comply fully with their obligations in accordance with Union law.
V skladu s členom 4(3) Pogodbe o Evropski uniji (v nadaljnjem besedilu: PEU) morajo države članice sprejeti vse ustrezne ukrepe, ki so potrebni, da v celoti izpolnijo svoje obveznosti v skladu z zakonodajo Unije.
The internal market offers many opportunities to individuals who want to live and work in another Member State and to businesses that wish to expand their markets.
Notranji trg ponuja veliko priložnosti posameznikom, ki si želijo živeti in delati v drugi državi članici, in podjetjem, ki želijo razširiti svoje trge.
While the internal market generally functions well, problems sometimes arise where public authorities do not respect Union law.
Čeprav notranji trg praviloma dobro deluje, včasih nastajajo težave, če javni organi ne spoštujejo zakonodaje Unije.
Following Commission Recommendation 2001/893/EC of 7 December 2001 on principles for using ‘SOLVIT’ – the Internal Market Problem Solving Network [1], SOLVIT was created as a network of centres set up by Member States within their own national administrations, as a fast and informal means of resolving problems individuals and businesses encounter when exercising their rights in the internal market.
Na podlagi Priporočila Komisije 2001/893/ES z dne 7. decembra 2001 o načelih za uporabo mreže Solvit za reševanje problemov notranjega trga [1] je bila mreža Solvit vzpostavljena kot mreža centrov, ustanovljenih v državah članicah v okviru njihovih nacionalnih uprav, namenjena pa je bila hitremu in neformalnemu reševanju problemov, s katerimi se posamezniki in podjetja srečujejo pri uveljavljanju svojih pravic na notranjem trgu.
Whilst SOLVIT is informal and pragmatic in nature, its set-up contributes to ensuring that solutions found are compliant with Union law.
Čeprav je mreža Solvit neformalne in pragmatične narave, je oblikovana tako, da prispeva k zagotavljanju skladnosti rešitev z zakonodajo Unije.
SOLVIT is based on a transparent problem-solving process involving two Member States.
Mreža Solvit temelji na preglednem postopku reševanja težav, ki vključuje dve državi članici.
Whilst the Commission is not normally involved in resolving cases, it is in close contact with SOLVIT centres, offers regular legal training and, in some complex cases, provides informal advice.
Čeprav Komisija običajno ne sodeluje pri reševanju primerov, tesno sodeluje s centri Solvit, ponuja redno pravno usposabljanje in v nekaterih zahtevnih primerih zagotavlja tudi neformalno svetovanje.
It also monitors SOLVIT case handling and outcomes via the online database and can intervene whenever it considers that solutions proposed by SOLVIT centres are not compliant with Union law.
Prav tako spremlja reševanje primerov v okviru mreže Solvit ter končne rezultate prek spletne zbirke podatkov, pri čemer lahko kadar koli posreduje, če meni, da rešitve centrov Solvit niso skladne z zakonodajo Unije.
The aforementioned set-up not only contributes to the legality of outcomes in individual cases, but evaluation results indicate that the work of SOLVIT has also led to an overall improved compliance with Union law by national authorities.
Prej omenjena narava centrov ne prispeva le k zakonitosti rezultatov v posameznih primerih, ampak rezultati ocenjevanja kažejo, da je delo centra Solvit na splošno izboljšalo upoštevanje zakonodaje Unije s strani nacionalnih organov.
SOLVIT has evolved significantly since its inception.
Mreža Solvit se je od začetka svojega delovanja občutno posodobila.
It now handles ten times more cases than it did 10 years ago.
Zdaj obravnava desetkrat več primerov kot pred desetimi leti.
It also handles a much wider variety of cases than originally foreseen.
Prav tako obravnava veliko bolj raznolike primere, kot je bilo prvotno predvideno.
The overwhelming majority of cases are resolved successfully, within an average of nine weeks, leading to high satisfaction scores amongst those individuals and businesses that have used SOLVIT.
Veliko večino primerov rešijo uspešno in povprečno v devetih tednih, zaradi česar so bili posamezniki in podjetja, ki so mrežo Solvit uporabljali, z njenim delovanjem zelo zadovoljni.
Whilst SOLVIT is a success, the increased scale of the service has amplified various challenges.
Čeprav je mreža Solvit uspešna, se zaradi povečanega obsega storitev sooča z večjimi izzivi.
An in-depth evaluation of the network carried out over 2010 indicates that not all SOLVIT centres are equally well resourced or positioned.
Podrobna ocena mreže iz leta 2010 kaže, da nimajo vsi centri Solvit na voljo enakih virov niti ne delujejo vsi enako uspešno.
The take-up of cases and the level of service offered also vary across the network.
Centri se razlikujejo tudi po sprejemanju primerov in ravni storitev.
In addition, too few people and businesses find their way to SOLVIT.
Poleg tega premalo ljudi in podjetij pozna mrežo Solvit.