natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The adaptation of unknown rights in rem as explicitly provided for by this Regulation should not preclude other forms of adaptation in the context of the application of this Regulation.
Prilagoditev neznanih stvarnih pravic, določena s to uredbo, ne bi smela izključevati drugih oblik prilagoditev v okviru uporabe te uredbe.
The requirements for the recording in a register of a right in immovable or movable property should be excluded from the scope of this Regulation.
Zahteve za vpis pravice na nepremičnini ali premičnini v register bi bilo treba izključiti iz področja uporabe te uredbe.
It should therefore be the law of the Member State in which the register is kept (for immovable property, the lex rei sitae) which determines under what legal conditions and how the recording must be carried out and which authorities, such as land registers or notaries, are in charge of checking that all requirements are met and that the documentation presented or established is sufficient or contains the necessary information.
Zato bi moralo zakonske pogoje in način vpisa pravice ter organe, kot so zemljiške knjižne ali notarji, ki so pristojni, da preverijo, ali so izpolnjene vse zahteve in ali je predložena ali veljavna dokumentacija zadostna oziroma vsebuje vse potrebne informacije, določati pravo države članice, v kateri se vodi register (za nepremičnine, lex rei sitae).
In particular, the authorities may check that the right of the deceased to the succession property mentioned in the document presented for registration is a right which is recorded as such in the register or which is otherwise demonstrated in accordance with the law of the Member State in which the register is kept.
Organi lahko zlasti preverijo, ali je pravica zapustnika na zapuščini, ki je navedena v listini, predloženi za vpis, vpisana v register ali kako drugače izkazana v skladu s pravom države članice, v kateri se vodi register.
In order to avoid duplication of documents, the registration authorities should accept such documents drawn up in another Member State by the competent authorities whose circulation is provided for by this Regulation.
Da ne bi prišlo do podvajanja listin, bi morali organi, pristojni za vpis, priznati listine, ki jih sestavijo pristojni organi v drugi državi članici in katerih obtok je predviden v tej uredbi.
In particular, the European Certificate of Succession issued under this Regulation should constitute a valid document for the recording of succession property in a register of a Member State.
Zlasti evropsko potrdilo o dedovanju, ki se izda v skladu s to uredbo, bi moral biti veljavna listina za vpis zapuščine v register države članice.
This should not preclude the authorities involved in the registration from asking the person applying for registration to provide such additional information, or to present such additional documents, as are required under the law of the Member State in which the register is kept, for instance information or documents relating to the payment of revenue.
To ne pomeni, da organi, pristojni za vpis, ne morejo zahtevati, naj oseba, ki zaprosi za vpis, zagotovi dodatne informacije ali predloži dodatne listine, ki se zahtevajo po pravu države članice, v kateri se vodi register, na primer informacije ali listne v zvezi s plačilom davka.
The competent authority may indicate to the person applying for registration how the missing information or documents can be provided.
Pristojni organ lahko osebi, ki zaprosi za vpis, svetuje glede pridobitve manjkajočih informacij ali listin.
The effects of the recording of a right in a register should also be excluded from the scope of this Regulation.
Iz področja uporabe te uredbe bi bilo treba izključiti tudi učinke vpisa pravice v register.
It should therefore be the law of the Member State in which the register is kept which determines whether the recording is, for instance, declaratory or constitutive in effect.
Zato bi moralo pravo države članice, v kateri se vodi register, določati, ali ima vpis na primer deklaratorni ali konstitutivni učinek.
Thus, where, for example, the acquisition of a right in immovable property requires a recording in a register under the law of the Member State in which the register is kept in order to ensure the erga omnes effect of registers or to protect legal transactions, the moment of such acquisition should be governed by the law of that Member State.
Če je torej po pravu države članice, ki vodi register, pridobitev pravice na nepremičnini treba vpisati v register, da se zagotovi učinek erga omnes takega vpisa ali da se zaščitijo pravni posli, pravo te države določa, kdaj se takšna pravica pridobi.
This Regulation should respect the different systems for dealing with matters of succession applied in the Member States.
Ta uredba bi morala upoštevati različne sisteme za urejanje dednih zadev, ki se uporabljajo v državah članicah.
For the purposes of this Regulation, the term ‘court’ should therefore be given a broad meaning so as to cover not only courts in the true sense of the word, exercising judicial functions, but also the notaries or registry offices in some Member States who or which, in certain matters of succession, exercise judicial functions like courts, and the notaries and legal professionals who, in some Member States, exercise judicial functions in a given succession by delegation of power by a court.
Zato bi moral imeti izraz „sodišče“ v tej uredbi širok pomen, tako da se ne bi nanašal le na sodišča v pravem pomenu besede, ki izvajajo sodno funkcijo, temveč tudi na notarje ali matične urade v nekaterih državah članicah, ki v nekaterih dednih zadevah tako kot sodišča izvajajo sodno funkcijo, ter v nekaterih državah članicah na notarje in pravne strokovnjake, ki v določenih dednih zadevah izvajajo sodno funkcijo na podlagi prenosa pooblastil s strani sodišča.
All courts as defined in this Regulation should be bound by the rules of jurisdiction set out in this Regulation.
Za vsa sodišča, kot so opredeljena v tej uredbi, bi morala veljati pravila o pristojnosti iz te uredbe.
Conversely, the term ‘court’ should not cover non-judicial authorities of a Member State empowered under national law to deal with matters of succession, such as the notaries in most Member States where, as is usually the case, they are not exercising judicial functions.
Nasprotno pa izraz „sodišče“ ne bi smel vključevati izvensodnih organov držav članic, ki so po nacionalnem pravu pooblaščeni za obravnavanje dednih zadev, kot so notarji v večini držav članic, v katerih navadno ne izvajajo sodne funkcije.
This Regulation should allow all notaries who have competence in matters of succession in the Member States to exercise such competence.
Ta uredba bi morala vsem notarjem, ki so pristojni za obravnavanje dednih zadev v državah članicah, omogočiti izvajanje te pristojnosti.
Whether or not the notaries in a given Member State are bound by the rules of jurisdiction set out in this Regulation should depend on whether or not they are covered by the term ‘court’ for the purposes of this Regulation.
Veljavnost pravil o pristojnosti iz te uredbe za notarje v določeni državi bi morala biti odvisna od tega, ali spadajo v opredelitev sodišča iz te uredbe.
Acts issued by notaries in matters of succession in the Member States should circulate under this Regulation.
Listine, ki jih notarji izdajo v dednih zadevah v državah članicah, bi morale biti v obtoku v skladu s to uredbo.
When notaries exercise judicial functions they are bound by the rules of jurisdiction, and the decisions they give should circulate in accordance with the provisions on recognition, enforceability and enforcement of decisions.
Kadar notarji izvajajo sodno funkcijo, zanje veljajo pravila o pristojnosti, odločbe, ki jih izdajo, pa bi morale biti v obtoku v skladu z določbami o priznavanju, izvršljivosti in izvrševanju sodnih odločb.
When notaries do not exercise judicial functions they are not bound by the rules of jurisdiction, and the authentic instruments they issue should circulate in accordance with the provisions on authentic instruments.
Kadar notarji ne izvajajo sodne funkcije, zanje ne veljajo pravila o pristojnosti, javne listine, ki jih izdajo, pa bi morale biti v obtoku v skladu z določbami o javnih listinah.
In view of the increasing mobility of citizens and in order to ensure the proper administration of justice within the Union and to ensure that a genuine connecting factor exists between the succession and the Member State in which jurisdiction is exercised, this Regulation should provide that the general connecting factor for the purposes of determining both jurisdiction and the applicable law should be the habitual residence of the deceased at the time of death.
Zaradi vse večje mobilnosti evropskih državljanov bi bilo treba zaradi zagotovitve pravilnega delovanja pravosodja v Evropski uniji in zagotovitve obstoja resnične navezne okoliščine med dedovanjem in državo članico, v kateri se izvaja pristojnost, v tej uredbi določiti, da mora biti splošna navezna okoliščina za določitev pristojnosti in tudi prava, ki se uporablja, običajno prebivališče zapustnika v trenutku njegove smrti.
In order to determine the habitual residence, the authority dealing with the succession should make an overall assessment of the circumstances of the life of the deceased during the years preceding his death and at the time of his death, taking account of all relevant factual elements, in particular the duration and regularity of the deceased’s presence in the State concerned and the conditions and reasons for that presence.
Da bi se določilo običajno prebivališče, bi moral organ, ki obravnava dedovanje, oceniti vse okoliščine življenja zapustnika v letih pred njegovo smrtjo in ob njegovi smrti, pri čemer bi moral upoštevati vsa pomembna dejstva, zlasti kako dolgo in kako pogosto je zapustnik bival v zadevni državi, pa tudi pod kakšnimi pogoji in zakaj je tam bival.
The habitual residence thus determined should reveal a close and stable connection with the State concerned taking into account the specific aims of this Regulation.
Tako določeno običajno prebivališče bi moralo izkazovati posebej tesno in trdno povezavo z zadevno državo, upoštevajoč posebne cilje te uredbe.
In certain cases, determining the deceased’s habitual residence may prove complex.
V nekaterih primerih se lahko izkaže, da je določitev običajnega prebivališča zapustnika zapletena.
Such a case may arise, in particular, where the deceased for professional or economic reasons had gone to live abroad to work there, sometimes for a long time, but had maintained a close and stable connection with his State of origin.
Do takšnega primera bi lahko zlasti prišlo, če je zapustnik iz poklicnih ali ekonomskih razlogov odšel delat v tujino, lahko tudi za dalj časa, vendar je ohranil tesno in trdno povezavo z državo izvora.
In such a case, the deceased could, depending on the circumstances of the case, be considered still to have his habitual residence in his State of origin in which the centre of interests of his family and his social life was located.
V takšnem primeru se glede na okoliščine lahko šteje, da ima zapustnik še vedno običajno prebivališče v svoji državi izvora, ki je še vedno središče interesov njegove družine in kjer se je odvijalo njegovo družabno življenje.
Other complex cases may arise where the deceased lived in several States alternately or travelled from one State to another without settling permanently in any of them.
Do drugih zapletenih primerov bi lahko prišlo, če je zapustnik izmenično živel v več državah ali potoval iz ene države v drugo, ne da bi se v kateri stalno naselil.
If the deceased was a national of one of those States or had all his main assets in one of those States, his nationality or the location of those assets could be a special factor in the overall assessment of all the factual circumstances.
Če je bil zapustnik državljan ene od teh držav ali je imel vse glavno premoženje v eni od teh držav, bi bilo lahko njegovo državljanstvo ali kraj, kjer se premoženje nahaja, poseben dejavnik v skupni oceni vseh dejanskih okoliščin.
With regard to the determination of the law applicable to the succession the authority dealing with the succession may in exceptional cases – where, for instance, the deceased had moved to the State of his habitual residence fairly recently before his death and all the circumstances of the case indicate that he was manifestly more closely connected with another State – arrive at the conclusion that the law applicable to the succession should not be the law of the State of the habitual residence of the deceased but rather the law of the State with which the deceased was manifestly more closely connected.
Za določitev prava, ki se uporablja za dedovanje, lahko organ, ki obravnava dedovanje, v izjemnih primerih, če se je zapustnik na primer razmeroma nedavno pred smrtjo preselil v državo, v kateri je imel običajno prebivališče, in je iz vseh okoliščin zadeve jasno, da je bil očitno tesneje povezan z neko drugo državo, zaključi, da bi moralo biti pravo, ki se uporablja za dedovanje, pravo države, s katero je bil zapustnik očitno tesneje povezan, ne pa pravo države, v kateri je imel običajno prebivališče.
That manifestly closest connection should, however, not be resorted to as a subsidiary connecting factor whenever the determination of the habitual residence of the deceased at the time of death proves complex.
Vendar se očitno najtesnejša povezava ne bi smela uporabljati kot pomožna navezna okoliščina vsakič, ko bi se določanje običajnega prebivališča zapustnika ob njegovi smrti izkazalo za težavno.
Nothing in this Regulation should prevent a court from applying mechanisms designed to tackle the evasion of the law, such as fraude à la loi in the context of private international law.
Ta uredba v ničemer ne bi smela preprečevati sodiščem, da uporabijo mehanizme za preprečevanje izogibanja zakonov, kot je izigravanje zakonodaje v mednarodnem zasebnem pravu.
The rules of this Regulation are devised so as to ensure that the authority dealing with the succession will, in most situations, be applying its own law.
Pravila te uredbe so zasnovana tako, da bo organ, ki obravnava dedovanje, v večini primerov uporabil svoje pravo.
This Regulation therefore provides for a series of mechanisms which would come into play where the deceased had chosen as the law to govern his succession the law of a Member State of which he was a national.
Ta uredba zato predvideva vrsto mehanizmov, ki bi se uporabili v primerih, ko bi zapustnik za pravo, ki ureja dedovanje po njem, izbral pravo države članice, katere državljan je bil.
One such mechanism should be to allow the parties concerned to conclude a choice-of-court agreement in favour of the courts of the Member State of the chosen law.
Eden od teh mehanizmov bi moral zadevnim strankam omogočiti, da sklenejo dogovor o izbiri sodišča v korist sodišč države članice, katere pravo je bilo izbrano.
It would have to be determined on a case-by-case basis, depending in particular on the issue covered by the choice-of-court agreement, whether the agreement would have to be concluded between all parties concerned by the succession or whether some of them could agree to bring a specific issue before the chosen court in a situation where the decision by that court on that issue would not affect the rights of the other parties to the succession.
Za vsak primer posebej bi bilo treba glede na vprašanje, na katero se nanaša dogovor o izbiri sodišča, določiti, ali morajo dogovor skleniti vse stranke dedovanja ali pa se lahko nekatere od njih dogovorijo, da pred izbranim sodiščem začnejo postopek glede točno določenega vprašanja, če odločitev sodišča o tem vprašanju ne bi vplivala na druge stranke dedovanja.
If succession proceedings are opened by a court of its own motion, as is the case in certain Member States, that court should close the proceedings if the parties agree to settle the succession amicably out of court in the Member State of the chosen law.
Če je sodišče začelo postopek dedovanja po uradni dolžnosti, kar je primer v nekaterih državah članicah, bi moralo to sodišče končati postopek, če se stranke dogovorijo, da bodo dedovanje sporazumno uredile zunaj sodišča v državi članici, katere pravo je bilo izbrano.
Where succession proceedings are not opened by a court of its own motion, this Regulation should not prevent the parties from settling the succession amicably out of court, for instance before a notary, in a Member State of their choice where this is possible under the law of that Member State.
Če sodišče postopka ni začelo po uradni dolžnosti, ta uredba ne bi smela preprečevati strankam, da dedovanje sporazumno uredijo zunaj sodišča (na primer pri notarju) v državi članici, ki so jo izbrale, če je to mogoče po pravu te države članice.
This should be the case even if the law applicable to the succession is not the law of that Member State.
To bi moralo veljati, tudi če pravo, ki se uporablja za dedovanje, ni pravo te države članice.
In order to ensure that the courts of all Member States may, on the same grounds, exercise jurisdiction in relation to the succession of persons not habitually resident in a Member State at the time of death, this Regulation should list exhaustively, in a hierarchical order, the grounds on which such subsidiary jurisdiction may be exercised.
Da bi zagotovili, da lahko sodišča vseh držav članic iz istih razlogov izvajajo pristojnost za odločanje o dedovanju po osebah, ki ob smrti niso imele običajnega prebivališča v državi članici, bi bilo treba v tej uredbi taksativno in po pomembnosti našteti razloge, na podlagi katerih je mogoče izvajati takšno subsidiarno pristojnost.
In order to remedy, in particular, situations of denial of justice, this Regulation should provide a forum necessitatis allowing a court of a Member State, on an exceptional basis, to rule on a succession which is closely connected with a third State.
Da bi odpravili zlasti primere odrekanja sodnega varstva, bi bilo treba v tej uredbi določiti tudi forum necessitatis, tako da bi lahko sodišče države članice izjemoma odločalo o dedovanju, ki je tesno povezano s tretjo državo.
Such an exceptional basis may be deemed to exist when proceedings prove impossible in the third State in question, for example because of civil war, or when a beneficiary cannot reasonably be expected to initiate or conduct proceedings in that State.
Do takšnega izjemnega primera bi lahko prišlo, če postopek v tretji državi ne bi bili mogoč, na primer zaradi državljanske vojne, ali če ni mogoče upravičeno pričakovati, da bo upravičenec lahko začel ali izvedel postopek v tej državi.
Jurisdiction based on forum necessitatis should, however, be exercised only if the case has a sufficient connection with the Member State of the court seised.
Pristojnost na podlagi forum necessitatis pa bi se lahko izvajala le, če bi bila zadeva v zadostni meri povezana z državo članico, v kateri je sodišče, ki je začel postopek.
In order to simplify the lives of heirs and legatees habitually resident in a Member State other than that in which the succession is being or will be dealt with, this Regulation should allow any person entitled under the law applicable to the succession to make declarations concerning the acceptance or waiver of the succession, of a legacy or of a reserved share, or concerning the limitation of his liability for the debts under the succession, to make such declarations in the form provided for by the law of the Member State of his habitual residence before the courts of that Member State.
Da bi olajšali položaj dedičev in volilojemnikov, ki nimajo običajnega prebivališča v državi članici, v kateri se obravnava ali se bo obravnavalo dedovanje, bi morala ta uredba vsem osebam, ki lahko po pravu, ki se uporablja za dedovanje, dajo izjave o sprejemu dediščine, volila ali nujnega deleža ali odpovedi dediščini, volilu ali nujnemu deležu ali omejitvi svoje odgovornosti za zapustnikove dolgove, omogočiti, da dajo takšne izjave v obliki, določeni s pravom države, v kateri imajo običajno prebivališče, pred sodišči te države članice.
This should not preclude such declarations being made before other authorities in that Member State which are competent to receive declarations under national law.
To ne bi smelo pomeniti, da takšnih izjav ni mogoče dati pred drugimi organi v tej državi članici, ki so v skladu z nacionalnim pravom pristojni za sprejemanje izjav.
Persons choosing to avail themselves of the possibility to make declarations in the Member State of their habitual residence should themselves inform the court or authority which is or will be dealing with the succession of the existence of such declarations within any time limit set by the law applicable to the succession.
Osebe, ki se bodo odločile za možnost, da dajo izjavo v državi članici, v kateri imajo običajno prebivališče, bi morale sodišče ali organ, ki obravnava ali bo obravnaval dedovanje, same obvestiti o obstoju takšnih izjav v roku, ki ga določa pravo, ki se uporablja za dedovanje.
It should not be possible for a person who wishes to limit his liability for the debts under the succession to do so by a mere declaration to that effect before the courts or other competent authorities of the Member State of his habitual residence where the law applicable to the succession requires him to initiate specific legal proceedings, for instance inventory proceedings, before the competent court.
Če želi oseba omejiti svojo odgovornost za zapustnikove dolgove, za to ne bi smela zadostovati izjava v ta namen pri sodiščih ali drugih pristojnih organih države članice, v kateri ima običajno prebivališče, če pravo, ki se uporablja za dedovanje, od njega zahteva, da na pristojnem sodišču začne poseben sodni postopek, npr. postopek za popis dediščine.
In the interests of the harmonious functioning of justice, the giving of irreconcilable decisions in different Member States should be avoided.
Zaradi pravilnega delovanja pravosodja bi se bilo treba izogibati izdajanju nezdružljivih odločb v različnih državah članicah.
To that end, this Regulation should provide for general procedural rules similar to those of other Union instruments in the area of judicial cooperation in civil matters.
Zato bi bilo treba v tej uredbi določiti splošna postopkovna pravila, podobna pravilom v drugih instrumentih Unije s področja pravosodnega sodelovanja v civilnih zadevah.
One such procedural rule is a lis pendens rule which will come into play if the same succession case is brought before different courts in different Member States.
Eno od takšnih postopkovnih pravil je pravilo o litispendenci, ki se bo uporabilo, če bo isti primer dedovanja predložen različnim sodiščem v različnih državah članicah.
That rule will then determine which court should proceed to deal with the succession case.
Na podlagi tega pravila se bo nato določilo, katero sodišče bo dejansko obravnavalo dedovanje.
Given that succession matters in some Member States may be dealt with by non-judicial authorities, such as notaries, who are not bound by the rules of jurisdiction under this Regulation, it cannot be excluded that an amicable out-of-court settlement and court proceedings relating to the same succession, or two amicable out-of-court settlements relating to the same succession, may be initiated in parallel in different Member States.
Ker lahko v nekaterih državah dedne zadeve obravnavajo izvensodni organi, kot so notarji, za katere ne veljajo pravila o pristojnosti iz te uredbe, ni mogoče izključiti, da se lahko v zvezi z istim dedovanjem v različnih državah članicah vzporedno začneta postopek za sporazumno ureditev zunaj sodišča in sodni postopek ali dva postopka za sporazumno ureditev zunaj sodišča.
In such a situation, it should be for the parties involved, once they become aware of the parallel proceedings, to agree among themselves how to proceed.
V takšnem primeru bi se morali stranki postopka, ko ugotovita, da potekata vzporedna postopka, dogovoriti o nadaljnjem postopku.
If they cannot agree, the succession would have to be dealt with and decided upon by the courts having jurisdiction under this Regulation.
Če se ne moreta dogovoriti, bi morala dedovanje obravnavati in o njem odločati sodišča, ki so pristojna v skladu s to uredbo.