natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1214/2012
Izvedbena uredba Komisije (EU) št. 1214/2012
Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council
Uredba (EU) št. 1215/2012 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta
on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters
o pristojnosti in priznavanju ter izvrševanju sodnih odločb v civilnih in gospodarskih zadevah
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 67(4) and points (a), (c) and (e) of Article 81(2) thereof,
ob upoštevanju Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije in zlasti člena 67(4) ter točk (a), (c) in (e) člena 81(2) Pogodbe,
On 21 April 2009, the Commission adopted a report on the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters [3].
Dne 21. aprila 2009 je Komisija sprejela poročilo o izvajanju Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 44/2001 z dne 22. decembra 2000 o pristojnosti in priznavanju ter izvrševanju sodnih odločb v civilnih in gospodarskih zadevah [3].
The report concluded that, in general, the operation of that Regulation is satisfactory, but that it is desirable to improve the application of certain of its provisions, to further facilitate the free circulation of judgments and to further enhance access to justice.
Iz poročila izhaja, da je na splošno izvajanje navedene uredbe zadovoljivo, da pa bi bilo treba izboljšati izvajanje nekaterih njenih določb ter s tem še bolj olajšati prosti pretok sodnih odločb in dostop do sodnega varstva.
Since a number of amendments are to be made to that Regulation it should, in the interests of clarity, be recast.
Ker so potrebne številne spremembe navedene uredbe, bi jo bilo zaradi jasnosti treba prenoviti.
At its meeting in Brussels on 10 and 11 December 2009, the European Council adopted a new multiannual programme entitled ‘The Stockholm Programme – an open and secure Europe serving and protecting citizens’ [4].
(2) Evropski svet je na zasedanju 10. in 11. decembra 2009 v Bruslju sprejel nov večletni program z naslovom „Stockholmski program – odprta in varna Evropa, ki služi državljanom in jih varuje“ [4].
In the Stockholm Programme the European Council considered that the process of abolishing all intermediate measures (the exequatur) should be continued during the period covered by that Programme.
V Stockholmskem programu je Evropski svet menil, da bi bilo treba v obdobju navedenega programa nadaljevati z odpravo vseh vmesnih ukrepov (eksekvatur).
At the same time the abolition of the exequatur should also be accompanied by a series of safeguards.
Odpravo vseh vmesnih ukrepov bi morala spremljati vrsta jamstev.
The Union has set itself the objective of maintaining and developing an area of freedom, security and justice, inter alia, by facilitating access to justice, in particular through the principle of mutual recognition of judicial and extra-judicial decisions in civil matters.
Unija si je zastavila cilj ohranjati in razvijati območje svobode, varnosti in pravice, med drugim z lajšanjem dostopa do sodnega varstva, zlasti z načelom vzajemnega priznavanja sodnih in izvensodnih odločb v civilnih zadevah.
For the gradual establishment of such an area, the Union is to adopt measures relating to judicial cooperation in civil matters having cross-border implications, particularly when necessary for the proper functioning of the internal market.
Za postopno vzpostavitev takšnega območja mora Unija sprejeti ukrepe v zvezi s pravosodnim sodelovanjem v civilnih zadevah s čezmejnimi posledicami, zlasti kadar so ti potrebni za pravilno delovanje notranjega trga.
Certain differences between national rules governing jurisdiction and recognition of judgments hamper the sound operation of the internal market.
Določene razlike med nacionalnimi predpisi, ki urejajo pristojnost in priznavanje sodnih odločb, ovirajo nemoteno delovanje notranjega trga.
Provisions to unify the rules of conflict of jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters, and to ensure rapid and simple recognition and enforcement of judgments given in a Member State, are essential.
Nujno je potrebno sprejetje določb za poenotenje kolizijskih pravil glede pristojnosti v civilnih in gospodarskih zadevah ter zagotavljanje hitrega in enostavnega priznanja ter izvršitve sodnih odločb, sprejetih v državi članici.
Such provisions fall within the area of judicial cooperation in civil matters within the meaning of Article 81 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).
Te določbe spadajo na področje pravosodnega sodelovanja v civilnih zadevah v smislu člena 81 Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije (PDEU).
In order to attain the objective of free circulation of judgments in civil and commercial matters, it is necessary and appropriate that the rules governing jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments be governed by a legal instrument of the Union which is binding and directly applicable.
Zaradi doseganja cilja prostega pretoka sodnih odločb v civilnih in gospodarskih zadevah je treba zagotoviti in je primerno, da pravila, ki urejajo pristojnost ter priznanje in izvršitev sodnih odločb, ureja zavezujoč in neposredno uporabljiv pravni akt Unije.
On 27 September 1968, the then Member States of the European Communities, acting under Article 220, fourth indent, of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, concluded the Brussels Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, subsequently amended by conventions on the accession to that Convention of new Member States [5] (‘the 1968 Brussels Convention’).
Takratne države članice Evropskih skupnosti so 27. septembra 1968 na podlagi četrte alinee člena 220 Pogodbe o ustanovitvi Evropske gospodarske skupnosti sklenile Bruseljsko konvencijo o pristojnosti in priznavanju ter izvrševanju sodnih odločb v civilnih in gospodarskih zadevah, kakor je bila pozneje dopolnjena s konvencijami o pristopu novih držav članic k tej konvenciji [5] (v nadaljnjem besedilu: Bruseljska konvencija iz leta 1968).
On 22 December 2000, the Council adopted Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, which replaces the 1968 Brussels Convention with regard to the territories of the Member States covered by the TFEU, as between the Member States except Denmark.
Svet je 22. decembra 2000 sprejel Uredbo (ES) št. 44/2001, ki nadomešča Bruseljsko konvencijo iz leta 1968, kar zadeva ozemlja držav članic, za katere velja PDEU, in sicer za države članice, razen Danske.
By Council Decision 2006/325/EC [7], the Community concluded an agreement with Denmark ensuring the application of the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 in Denmark.
Skupnost je s Sklepom Sveta 2006/325/ES [7] z Dansko sklenila sporazum, ki zagotavlja izvajanje določb Uredbe (ES) št. 44/2001 na Danskem.
The 1988 Lugano Convention was revised by the Convention on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters [8], signed at Lugano on 30 October 2007 by the Community, Denmark, Iceland, Norway and Switzerland (‘the 2007 Lugano Convention’).
Skupnost, Danska, Islandija Norveška in Švica so 30. oktobra 2007 v Luganu podpisale konvencijo o pristojnosti in priznavanju ter izvrševanju sodnih odločb v civilnih in gospodarskih zadevah [8], ki je spremenila Lugansko konvencijo iz leta 1988 (v nadaljnjem besedilu: Luganska konvencija iz leta 2007).
The 1968 Brussels Convention continues to apply to the territories of the Member States which fall within the territorial scope of that Convention and which are excluded from this Regulation pursuant to Article 355 of the TFEU.
Bruseljska konvencija iz leta 1968 se še naprej uporablja na ozemljih držav članic, ki spadajo v ozemeljsko področje uporabe navedene konvencije in so v skladu s členom 355 PDEU izključena iz te uredbe.
The scope of this Regulation should cover all the main civil and commercial matters apart from certain well-defined matters, in particular maintenance obligations, which should be excluded from the scope of this Regulation following the adoption of Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 of 18 December 2008 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations [9].
Področje uporabe te uredbe bi moralo zajemati vse glavne civilne in gospodarske zadeve, razen točno opredeljenih zadev, zlasti preživninskih obveznosti, ki bi jih bilo treba izključiti iz področja uporabe te uredbe zaradi sprejetja Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 4/2009 z dne 18. decembra 2008 o pristojnosti, pravu, ki se uporablja, priznavanju in izvrševanju sodnih odločb ter sodelovanju v preživninskih zadevah [9].
For the purposes of this Regulation, courts or tribunals of the Member States should include courts or tribunals common to several Member States, such as the Benelux Court of Justice when it exercises jurisdiction on matters falling within the scope of this Regulation.
Za namene te uredbe bi morala sodišča držav članic vključevati sodišča, ki so skupna več državam članicam, kot je Sodišče Beneluksa, kadar izvajajo svojo pristojnost v zadevah, ki spadajo v področje uporabe te uredbe.
Therefore, judgments given by such courts should be recognised and enforced in accordance with this Regulation.
Zato bi se morale sodne odločbe takšnih sodišč priznavati in izvrševati v skladu s to uredbo.
This Regulation should not apply to arbitration.
Ta uredba se ne bi smela uporabljati za arbitražo.
Nothing in this Regulation should prevent the courts of a Member State, when seised of an action in a matter in respect of which the parties have entered into an arbitration agreement, from referring the parties to arbitration, from staying or dismissing the proceedings, or from examining whether the arbitration agreement is null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed, in accordance with their national law.
Ta uredba ne bi smela v ničemer preprečevati, da sodišča države članice, pred katerimi teče tožba v zvezi z zadevo, glede katere so stranke sklenile arbitražni sporazum, stranke v skladu s svojim nacionalnim pravom napotijo na arbitražo, prekinejo postopek ali ga zavržejo, ali da preučijo, ali je arbitražni sporazum ničen ali neveljaven, nima učinka ali ga ni mogoče izvršiti.
A ruling given by a court of a Member State as to whether or not an arbitration agreement is null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed should not be subject to the rules of recognition and enforcement laid down in this Regulation, regardless of whether the court decided on this as a principal issue or as an incidental question.
Za odločitev sodišča države članice o tem, ali je arbitražni sporazum ničen, nima učinka ali ga ni mogoče izvršiti, se ne bi smela uporabljati pravila o priznavanju in izvrševanju iz te uredbe, ne glede na to, ali je sodišče o tem odločalo kot o glavnem ali predhodnem vprašanju.
On the other hand, where a court of a Member State, exercising jurisdiction under this Regulation or under national law, has determined that an arbitration agreement is null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed, this should not preclude that court’s judgment on the substance of the matter from being recognised or, as the case may be, enforced in accordance with this Regulation.
Nasprotno pa dejstvo, da sodišče države članice, ki je pristojno na podlagi te uredbe ali po nacionalnem pravu, ugotovi, da je arbitražni sporazum ničen in neveljaven, nima učinka ali ga ni mogoče izvršiti, ne bi smelo preprečevati priznanja sodne odločbe sodišča o glavni stvari ali njene izvršitve v skladu s to uredbo.
This should be without prejudice to the competence of the courts of the Member States to decide on the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards in accordance with the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, done at New York on 10 June 1958 (‘the 1958 New York Convention’), which takes precedence over this Regulation.
To ne bi smelo posegati v pristojnost sodišč držav članic za odločanje o priznavanju in izvrševanju arbitražnih odločb v skladu s Konvencijo o priznavanju in izvrševanju tujih arbitražnih odločb, podpisano 10. junija 1958 v New Yorku (v nadaljnjem besedilu: Newyorška konvencija iz leta 1958), ki prevlada nad to uredbo.
This Regulation should not apply to any action or ancillary proceedings relating to, in particular, the establishment of an arbitral tribunal, the powers of arbitrators, the conduct of an arbitration procedure or any other aspects of such a procedure, nor to any action or judgment concerning the annulment, review, appeal, recognition or enforcement of an arbitral award.
Ta uredba se ne bi smela uporabljati za tožbe ali pomožne postopke, zlasti v zvezi z ustanovitvijo arbitražnega sodišča, pristojnosti arbitrov, izvedbo arbitražnega postopka ali drugimi vidiki takšnega postopka, niti za tožbo ali sodno odločbo v zvezi z razveljavitvijo, pregledom, priznavanjem in izvrševanjem arbitražne odločbe ali pravnim sredstvom zoper to odločbo.
There must be a connection between proceedings to which this Regulation applies and the territory of the Member States.
Med postopki, za katere se uporablja ta uredba, in ozemljem držav članic mora biti povezava.
Accordingly, common rules of jurisdiction should, in principle, apply when the defendant is domiciled in a Member State.
Zato bi se morala skupna pravila o pristojnosti praviloma uporabljati, če ima toženec stalno prebivališče v eni od držav članic.
A defendant not domiciled in a Member State should in general be subject to the national rules of jurisdiction applicable in the territory of the Member State of the court seised.
Za toženca, ki nima stalnega prebivališča v eni od držav članic, praviloma veljajo nacionalna pravila o pristojnosti, ki se uporabljajo na ozemlju države članice sodišča, ki je začelo postopek.
However, in order to ensure the protection of consumers and employees, to safeguard the jurisdiction of the courts of the Member States in situations where they have exclusive jurisdiction and to respect the autonomy of the parties, certain rules of jurisdiction in this Regulation should apply regardless of the defendant’s domicile.
Da bi zagotovili varstvo potrošnikov in zaposlenih, zaščitili pristojnost sodišč držav članic v situacijah, ko imajo izključno pristojnost, in spoštovali avtonomnost strank, pa bi morala določena pravila o pristojnosti iz te uredbe veljati ne glede na to, kje ima toženec stalno prebivališče.
The rules of jurisdiction should be highly predictable and founded on the principle that jurisdiction is generally based on the defendant’s domicile.
Pravila o pristojnosti bi morala biti čim bolj predvidljiva in morajo temeljiti na načelu, da se pristojnost praviloma določa po stalnem prebivališču toženca.
Jurisdiction should always be available on this ground save in a few well-defined situations in which the subject-matter of the dispute or the autonomy of the parties warrants a different connecting factor.
Pri tem bi morala taka pristojnost vedno obstajati, razen v nekaterih točno opredeljenih primerih, v katerih je zaradi predmeta spora ali avtonomije strank upravičena druga navezna okoliščina.
The domicile of a legal person must be defined autonomously so as to make the common rules more transparent and avoid conflicts of jurisdiction.
Da bi postala skupna pravila preglednejša in da ne pride do kolizije pristojnosti, je treba stalno prebivališče pravne osebe opredeliti kot avtonomen koncept.
In addition to the defendant’s domicile, there should be alternative grounds of jurisdiction based on a close connection between the court and the action or in order to facilitate the sound administration of justice.
Poleg stalnega prebivališča toženca bi morala obstajati tudi alternativna podlaga pristojnosti, ki temelji na tesni povezavi med sodiščem in sporom, ali ki pripomore k pravilnemu delovanju pravosodja.
The existence of a close connection should ensure legal certainty and avoid the possibility of the defendant being sued in a court of a Member State which he could not reasonably have foreseen.
Obstoj tesne povezave bi moral zagotoviti pravno varnost in preprečitil možnost, da bi bil toženec tožen pred sodiščem države članice, katerega pristojnosti razumno ni bilo mogoče predvideti.
This is important, particularly in disputes concerning non-contractual obligations arising out of violations of privacy and rights relating to personality, including defamation.
To je pomembno zlasti v sporih v zvezi z nepogodbenimi obveznostmi, ki izvirajo iz kršitev zasebnosti in osebnostnih pravic, vključno z obrekovanjem.
The owner of a cultural object as defined in Article 1(1) of Council Directive 93/7/EEC of 15 March 1993 on the return of cultural objects unlawfully removed from the territory of a Member State [10] should be able under this Regulation to initiate proceedings as regards a civil claim for the recovery, based on ownership, of such a cultural object in the courts for the place where the cultural object is situated at the time the court is seised.
Lastnik predmeta kulturne dediščine, kot je opredeljen v členu 1(1) Direktive Sveta 93/7/EGS z dne 15. marca 1993 o vračanju predmetov kulturne dediščine, ki so bili protipravno odstranjeni iz ozemlja države članice [10], bi moral imeti po tej uredbi možnost vložiti civilnopravni zahtevek za vračilo takega predmeta kulturne dediščine iz naslova lastninske pravice le-tega na sodiščih v kraju, kjer se predmet kulturne dediščine nahaja ob začetku postopka.
Such proceedings should be without prejudice to proceedings initiated under Directive 93/7/EEC.
Ti postopki ne bi smeli posegati v postopke, začete v skladu z Direktivo 93/7/EGS.
In relation to insurance, consumer and employment contracts, the weaker party should be protected by rules of jurisdiction more favourable to his interests than the general rules.
Šibkejša stranka bi morala biti v zvezi z zavarovalnimi ter potrošniškimi pogodbami in pogodbami o zaposlitvi zaščitena s pravili o pristojnosti, ki so za varstvo njenih pravic ugodnejša od splošnih pravil.
The autonomy of the parties to a contract, other than an insurance, consumer or employment contract, where only limited autonomy to determine the courts having jurisdiction is allowed, should be respected subject to the exclusive grounds of jurisdiction laid down in this Regulation.
Razen pri zavarovalnih pogodbah, potrošniških pogodbah ali pogodbah o zaposlitvi, kjer je avtonomija glede določitve pristojnih sodišč dovoljena samo v omejenem obsegu, bi bilo treba, ob upoštevanju izključnih pristojnosti, določenih v tej uredbi, spoštovati avtonomijo pogodbenih strank.
Where a question arises as to whether a choice-of-court agreement in favour of a court or the courts of a Member State is null and void as to its substantive validity, that question should be decided in accordance with the law of the Member State of the court or courts designated in the agreement, including the conflict-of-laws rules of that Member State.
Vprašanje, ali je dogovor o pristojnosti sodišča, s katerim se izbere sodišče ali sodišča države članice, z vidika materialne veljavnosti ničen in neveljaven, bi bilo treba presoditi po pravu države članice sodišča ali sodišč iz dogovora, vključno s kolizijskimi pravili navedene države članice.
In the interests of the harmonious administration of justice it is necessary to minimise the possibility of concurrent proceedings and to ensure that irreconcilable judgments will not be given in different Member States.
V interesu usklajenega delovanja pravosodja je treba čim bolj zmanjšati možnost sočasnih postopkov in zagotoviti, da v različnih državah članicah niso izdane nezdružljive sodne odločbe.
There should be a clear and effective mechanism for resolving cases of lis pendens and related actions, and for obviating problems flowing from national differences as to the determination of the time when a case is regarded as pending.
Obstajati bi moral jasen in učinkovit mehanizem za reševanje primerov litispendence in sorodnih pravd ter za preprečevanje problemov, ki izhajajo iz razlik med državami članicami v zvezi z določitvijo trenutka, ko se šteje, da postopek teče.
For the purposes of this Regulation, that time should be defined autonomously.
Za namene te uredbe bi bilo treba ta trenutek opredeliti kot avtonomen koncept.
However, in order to enhance the effectiveness of exclusive choice-of-court agreements and to avoid abusive litigation tactics, it is necessary to provide for an exception to the general lis pendens rule in order to deal satisfactorily with a particular situation in which concurrent proceedings may arise.
Za izboljšanje učinkovitosti dogovorov o izključni pristojnosti sodišča in v izogib zlorabi procesnih pravil je treba določiti odstopanje od splošnega pravila litispendence, da bi zadovoljivo rešili določene primere, kadar lahko pride do sočasnih postopkov.
This is the situation where a court not designated in an exclusive choice-of-court agreement has been seised of proceedings and the designated court is seised subsequently of proceedings involving the same cause of action and between the same parties.
To so primeri, kadar postopek začne sodišče, ki ni bilo izbrano v dogovoru o izključni pristojnosti sodišča, kasneje pa začne postopek še izbrano sodišče v zvezi z istim zahtevkom in med istima strankama.
In such a case, the court first seised should be required to stay its proceedings as soon as the designated court has been seised and until such time as the latter court declares that it has no jurisdiction under the exclusive choice-of-court agreement.
V takem primeru bi moralo sodišče, ki je prvo začelo postopek, ustaviti postopek takoj, ko začne teči postopek pred izbranim sodiščem, in vse do trenutka, ko to sodišče izjavi, da v okviru dogovora o izključni pristojnosti sodišča nima pristojnosti.
This is to ensure that, in such a situation, the designated court has priority to decide on the validity of the agreement and on the extent to which the agreement applies to the dispute pending before it.
S tem se zagotovi, da ima izbrano sodišče v takšnem primeru prednost pri odločitvi o veljavnosti dogovora in o tem, v kolikšni meri ta dogovor velja za spor, ki ga to sodišče obravnava.
The designated court should be able to proceed irrespective of whether the non-designated court has already decided on the stay of proceedings.
Izbrano sodišče bi moralo imeti možnost, da obravnava primer ne glede na to, ali je neizbrano sodišče že odločilo o ustavitvi postopka.
This exception should not cover situations where the parties have entered into conflicting exclusive choice-of-court agreements or where a court designated in an exclusive choice-of-court agreement has been seised first.
Ta izjema ne bi smela zajemati primerov, ko so stranke sklenile nasprotujoče si dogovore o izključni pristojnosti sodišča ali kjer je sodišče, izbrano v dogovoru o izključni pristojnosti sodišča, prvo začelo postopek.
In such cases, the general lis pendens rule of this Regulation should apply.
V takšnih primerih bi se moralo uporabljati splošno pravilo o litispendenci iz te uredbe.
This Regulation should provide for a flexible mechanism allowing the courts of the Member States to take into account proceedings pending before the courts of third States, considering in particular whether a judgment of a third State will be capable of recognition and enforcement in the Member State concerned under the law of that Member State and the proper administration of justice.
Ta uredba bi morala določati prožen mehanizem, ki bi sodiščem držav članic omogočil upoštevanje postopkov, ki tečejo pred sodišči tretjih držav, v obzir pa bi vzel zlasti možnost priznanja in izvršitve sodbe tretje države v zadevni državi članici v skladu s pravom te države članice ter ustreznim delovanjem pravosodja.
When taking into account the proper administration of justice, the court of the Member State concerned should assess all the circumstances of the case before it.
Pri oceni ustreznega delovanja pravosodja bi moralo sodišče zadevne države članice upoštevati vse okoliščine posamezne zadeve.