natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Even if the right of set-off is not contingent on a future event, it may only be legally enforceable in the normal course of business, or in the event of default, or in the event of insolvency or bankruptcy, of one or all of the counterparties.
Tudi če pravica do pobota ni pogojena s prihodnjim dogodkom, je morda lahko zakonsko izvršljiva samo v običajnem okviru poslovanja ali v primeru neplačila ali v primeru insolventnosti ali stečaja ene ali vseh nasprotnih strank.
B To meet the criterion in paragraph 42(a), an entity must currently have a legally enforceable right of set-off.
B Da bi bil izpolnjen kriterij iz 42.(a) člena, mora podjetje trenutno imeti zakonsko izvršljivo pravico do pobota.
This means that the right of set-off:
To pomeni, da pravica do pobota:
must not be contingent on a future event; and
ne sme biti pogojena s prihodnjim dogodkom in
must be legally enforceable in all of the following circumstances:
mora biti zakonsko izvršljiva v vseh naslednjih okoliščinah:
the normal course of business;
običajen okvir poslovanja,
the event of default; and
primer neplačila in
the event of insolvency or bankruptcy
primer insolventnosti ali stečaja
of the entity and all of the counterparties.
podjetja in vseh nasprotnih strank.
C The nature and extent of the right of set-off, including any conditions attached to its exercise and whether it would remain in the event of default or insolvency or bankruptcy, may vary from one legal jurisdiction to another.
C Narava in obseg pravice do pobota, vključno s katerimi koli pogoji za njeno izvršitev ter vprašanjem, ali se pravica ohrani v primeru neplačila, insolventnosti ali stečaja, se lahko med različnimi zakonodajami razlikujeta.
Consequently, it cannot be assumed that the right of set-off is automatically available outside of the normal course of business.
Zato se ne more predpostavljati, da je pravica do pobota avtomatsko na voljo izven običajnega okvira poslovanja.
For example, the bankruptcy or insolvency laws of a jurisdiction may prohibit, or restrict, the right of set-off in the event of bankruptcy or insolvency in some circumstances.
Na primer, v nekaterih zakonodajah lahko zakoni o stečaju ali insolventnosti v nekaterih okoliščinah prepovedujejo ali omejujejo pravico do pobota v primeru stečaja ali insolventnosti.
D The laws applicable to the relationships between the parties (for example, contractual provisions, the laws governing the contract, or the default, insolvency or bankruptcy laws applicable to the parties) need to be considered to ascertain whether the right of set-off is enforceable in the normal course of business, in an event of default, and in the event of insolvency or bankruptcy, of the entity and all of the counterparties (as specified in paragraph AG38B(b)).
D Upoštevati je treba zakone, ki veljajo za razmerja med strankami (na primer pogodbena določila, zakoni, ki urejajo pogodbe, ali zakoni o neplačilu, insolventnosti ali stečaju, ki veljajo za stranke), da se lahko ugotovi, ali je pravica do pobota izvršljiva v običajnem okviru poslovanja, v primeru neplačila in v primeru insolventnosti ali stečaja podjetja in vseh nasprotnih strank (kot je določeno v AG38.B(b) členu).
Criterion that an entity ‘intends either to settle on a net basis, or to realise the asset and settle the liability simultaneously’ (paragraph 42(b))
Kriterij, da podjetje „namerava bodisi poravnati čisti znesek ali unovčiti sredstvo in hkrati poravnati svojo obveznost“ (42.(b) člen)
E To meet the criterion in paragraph 42(b) an entity must intend either to settle on a net basis or to realise the asset and settle the liability simultaneously.
E Da izpolni kriterij iz 42.(b) člena, mora podjetje imeti namen bodisi poravnati čisti znesek ali unovčiti sredstvo in hkrati poravnati svojo obveznost.
Although the entity may have a right to settle net, it may still realise the asset and settle the liability separately.
Čeprav ima podjetje morda pravico, da poravna čisti znesek, lahko še vedno unovči sredstvo in poravna obveznost ločeno.
F If an entity can settle amounts in a manner such that the outcome is, in effect, equivalent to net settlement, the entity will meet the net settlement criterion in paragraph 42(b).
F Če lahko podjetje zneske poravna tako, da je rezultat dejansko enakovreden neto poravnavi, bo izpolnilo kriterij o neto poravnavi iz 42.(b) člena.
This will occur if, and only if, the gross settlement mechanism has features that eliminate or result in insignificant credit and liquidity risk, and that will process receivables and payables in a single settlement process or cycle.
To se bo zgodilo le v primeru, če ima mehanizem bruto poravnave lastnosti, ki odpravijo kreditno in likvidnostno tveganje ali privedejo do nepomembnega kreditnega in likvidnostnega tveganja in zaradi katerih bodo terjatve in obveznosti obdelane v enem samem procesu ali ciklu poravnave.
For example, a gross settlement system that has all of the following characteristics would meet the net settlement criterion in paragraph 42(b):
Na primer, sistem bruto poravnave, ki ima vse od naslednjih značilnosti, bi izpolnil kriterij neto poravnave iz 42.(b) člena:
financial assets and financial liabilities eligible for set-off are submitted at the same point in time for processing;
finančna sredstva in finančne obveznosti, primerni za pobotanje, so posredovani v obdelavo v istem trenutku;
once the financial assets and financial liabilities are submitted for processing, the parties are committed to fulfil the settlement obligation;
ko so finančna sredstva in finančne obveznosti posredovani v obdelavo, sta stranki zavezani izpolniti obvezo glede poravnave;
there is no potential for the cash flows arising from the assets and liabilities to change once they have been submitted for processing (unless the processing fails—see (d) below);
ni verjetnosti, da bi se denarni tokovi, ki izhajajo iz sredstev in obveznosti, spremenili, potem ko so bili posredovani v obdelavo (razen če je obdelava neuspešna – glejte točko (d) spodaj);
assets and liabilities that are collateralised with securities will be settled on a securities transfer or similar system (for example, delivery versus payment), so that if the transfer of securities fails, the processing of the related receivable or payable for which the securities are collateral will also fail (and vice versa);
sredstva in obveznosti, ki so zavarovani z vrednostnimi papirji, bodo poravnani v sistemu za prenos vrednostnih papirjev ali podobnem sistemu (na primer izročitev proti plačilu), tako, da če prenos vrednostnih papirjev ne uspe, obdelava povezane terjatve ali obveznosti, za katero vrednostni papirji predstavljajo zavarovanje, prav tako ne bo uspela (in obratno);
any transactions that fail, as outlined in (d), will be re-entered for processing until they are settled;
vse transakcije, ki ne uspejo, kot je opisano v točki (d), se ponovno posredujejo v obdelavo, dokler niso poravnane;
settlement is carried out through the same settlement institution (for example, a settlement bank, a central bank or a central securities depository); and
poravnava se izvede prek iste poravnalne institucije (na primer poravnalne banke, centralne banke ali centralnega registra vrednostnih papirjev); in
an intraday credit facility is in place that will provide sufficient overdraft amounts to enable the processing of payments at the settlement date for each of the parties, and it is virtually certain that the intraday credit facility will be honoured if called upon.
na voljo je dnevni kredit, ki bo zagotovil zadostne presežne zneske, da bo omogočena obdelava plačil na dan poravnave za vsako od strank, in skoraj gotovo je, da bo dnevni kredit zagotovil kritje, če bo to potrebno.
The amendments to IFRS 7 Financial Instruments: Disclosures – Transfers of Financial Assets were adopted by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1205/2011 of 22 November 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 1126/2008 adopting certain international accounting standards in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1606/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards International Financial Reporting Standard (IFRS) 7 [3] after being approved by the Accounting Regulatory Committee in June 2011.
Spremembe MSRP 7 Finančni instrumenti: razkritja – Prenosi finančnih sredstev so bila sprejeta z Uredbo Komisije (EU) št. 1205/2011 z dne 22. novembra 2011 o spremembi Uredbe (ES) št. 1126/2008 o sprejetju nekaterih mednarodnih računovodskih standardov v skladu z Uredbo (ES) št. 1606/2002 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta glede mednarodnega standarda računovodskega poročanja (MSRP) 7 [3], potem ko jih je junija 2011 potrdil Računovodski regulativni odbor.
However, the deletion of paragraph 13 of IFRS 7 was inadvertently omitted.
Pri tem pa odstavek 13 MSRP 7 pomotoma ni bil črtan.
However, the disclosures required by paragraph 13C(a) do not relate to any amounts recognised as a result of collateral agreements that do not meet the offsetting criteria in paragraph 42 of IAS 32.
Razkritja, ki jih zahteva 13.C(a) člen, pa se ne nanašajo na katere koli zneske, pripoznane kot posledica pogodb o zavarovanju, ki ne izpolnjujejo kriterijev za pobotanje iz 42. člena MRS 32.
Instead, such amounts are required to be disclosed in accordance with paragraph 13C(d).
Namesto tega se morajo takšni zneski razkriti v skladu s 13.C(d) členom.
An entity shall apply those amendments for annual periods beginning on or after 1 January 2014.
Podjetje te spremembe uporablja za letna obdobja, ki se začnejo 1. januarja 2014 ali pozneje.
An entity shall apply those amendments retrospectively.
Podjetje te spremembe izvaja za nazaj.
Regulation (EU) No 1257/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council
Uredba (EU) št. 1257/2012 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta
implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection
o izvajanju okrepljenega sodelovanja na področju uvedbe enotnega patentnega varstva
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and in particular the first paragraph of Article 118 thereof,
ob upoštevanju Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije in zlasti prvega odstavka člena 118 Pogodbe,
Having regard to Council Decision 2011/167/EU of 10 March 2011 authorising enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection [1],
ob upoštevanju Sklepa Sveta 2011/167/EU z dne 10. marca 2011 o odobritvi okrepljenega sodelovanja na področju uvedbe enotnega patentnega varstva [1],
The creation of the legal conditions enabling undertakings to adapt their activities in manufacturing and distributing products across national borders and providing them with greater choice and more opportunities contributes to the attainment of the objectives of the Union set out in Article 3(3) of the Treaty on European Union.
Uvedba pravnih pogojev, ki podjetjem omogočajo, da prilagodijo svoje dejavnosti pri proizvodnji in distribuciji izdelkov preko nacionalnih meja, ter jim zagotavljajo večjo izbiro in več priložnosti, prispeva k doseganju ciljev Unije iz člena 3(3) Pogodbe o Evropski uniji.
Uniform patent protection within the internal market, or at least a significant part thereof, should feature amongst the legal instruments which undertakings have at their disposal.
Enotno patentno varstvo na notranjem trgu ali vsaj na večjem delu notranjega trga bi moralo biti med pravnimi instrumenti, ki jih imajo na voljo podjetja.
Pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 118 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), measures to be taken in the context of the establishment and functioning of the internal market include the creation of uniform patent protection throughout the Union and the establishment of centralised Union-wide authorisation, coordination and supervision arrangements.
V skladu s prvim odstavkom člena 118 Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije (PDEU) ukrepi, predvideni v okviru vzpostavitve in delovanja notranjega trga, vključujejo uvedbo enotnega patentnega varstva v celotni Uniji ter vzpostavitev centralizirane ureditve na ravni Unije na področju potrjevanja, usklajevanja in nadzorovanja.
On 10 March 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/167/EU authorising enhanced cooperation between Belgium, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Estonia, Ireland, Greece, France, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Hungary, Malta, the Netherlands, Austria, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Finland, Sweden and the United Kingdom (hereinafter ‘participating Member States’) in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection.
Svet je 10. marca 2011 sprejel Sklep 2011/167/EU o odobritvi okrepljenega sodelovanja med Belgijo, Bolgarijo, Češko, Dansko, Nemčijo, Estonijo, Irsko, Grčijo, Francijo, Ciprom, Latvijo, Litvo, Luksemburgom, Madžarsko, Malto, Nizozemsko, Avstrijo, Poljsko, Portugalsko, Romunijo, Slovenijo, Slovaško, Finsko, Švedsko in Združenim kraljestvom (v nadaljnjem besedilu: sodelujoče države članice) na področju uvedbe enotnega patentnega varstva.
Unitary patent protection will foster scientific and technological advances and the functioning of the internal market by making access to the patent system easier, less costly and legally secure.
Enotno patentno varstvo bo spodbujalo znanstveni in tehnološki napredek ter delovanje notranjega trga z zagotavljanjem lažjega, cenejšega in pravno varnejšega dostopa do patentnega sistema.
It will also improve the level of patent protection by making it possible to obtain uniform patent protection in the participating Member States and eliminate costs and complexity for undertakings throughout the Union.
Poleg tega bo tudi izboljšalo raven patentnega varstva z omogočanjem pridobitve enotnega patentnega varstva v sodelujočih državah članicah, ter odpravilo stroške in zapletene postopke za podjetja v Uniji.
It should be available to proprietors of a European patent from both the participating Member States and from other States, regardless of their nationality, residence or place of establishment.
Enotno patentno varstvo bi moralo biti na voljo imetnikom evropskega patenta tako iz sodelujočih držav članic kot iz drugih držav, ne glede na njihovo državljanstvo, bivališče ali sedež.
The Convention on the Grant of European Patents of 5 October 1973, as revised on 17 December 1991 and on 29 November 2000 (hereinafter ‘EPC’), established the European Patent Organisation and entrusted it with the task of granting European patents.
S Konvencijo o podeljevanju evropskih patentov z dne 5. oktobra 1973, kakor je bila revidirana 17. decembra 1991 in 29. novembra 2000 (v nadaljnjem besedilu: EPK), je bila ustanovljena Evropska patentna organizacija in pooblaščena za podeljevanje evropskih patentov.
This task is carried out by the European Patent Office (hereinafter ‘EPO’).
To nalogo opravlja Evropski patentni urad (v nadaljnjem besedilu: EPU).
A European patent granted by the EPO should, at the request of the patent proprietor, benefit from unitary effect by virtue of this Regulation in the participating Member States.
Evropski patent, ki ga podeli EPU, bi moral imeti na zahtevo imetnika patenta v sodelujočih državah članicah enotni učinek na podlagi te uredbe.
Such a patent is hereinafter referred to as a ‘European patent with unitary effect’.
Tak patent se v nadaljnjem besedilu navaja kot „evropski patent z enotnim učinkom“.
In accordance with Part IX of the EPC a group of Contracting States to the EPC may provide that European patents granted for those States have a unitary character.
V skladu z delom IX EPK lahko skupina držav pogodbenic EPK določi, da imajo evropski patenti, podeljeni za te države, enotni značaj.
This Regulation constitutes a special agreement within the meaning of Article 142 of the EPC, a regional patent treaty within the meaning of Article 45(1) of the Patent Cooperation Treaty of 19 June 1970 as last modified on 3 February 2001 and a special agreement within the meaning of Article 19 of the Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, signed in Paris on 20 March 1883 and last amended on 28 September 1979.
Ta uredba predstavlja poseben sporazum v smislu člena 142 EPK, pogodbo o regionalnem patentu v smislu člena 45(1) Pogodbe o sodelovanju na področju patentov z dne 19. junija 1970, kakor je bila nazadnje spremenjena 3. februarja 2001, in poseben sporazum v smislu člena 19 Konvencije za varstvo industrijske lastnine, podpisane 20. marca 1883 v Parizu in nazadnje spremenjene 28. septembra 1979.
Unitary patent protection should be achieved by attributing unitary effect to European patents in the post-grant phase by virtue of this Regulation and in respect of all the participating Member States.
Enotno patentno varstvo bi bilo treba doseči z zagotavljanjem enotnega učinka evropskih patentov po njihovi podelitvi na podlagi te uredbe v vseh sodelujočih državah članicah.
The main feature of a European patent with unitary effect should be its unitary character, i.e. providing uniform protection and having equal effect in all the participating Member States.
Glavna značilnost evropskega patenta z enotnim učinkom bi moral biti njegov enotni značaj, kar pomeni, da bi zagotavljal enotno varstvo in imel enakovreden učinek v vseh sodelujočih državah članicah.
Consequently, a European patent with unitary effect should only be limited, transferred or revoked, or lapse, in respect of all the participating Member States.
Zato bi se moral evropski patent z enotnim učinkom omejiti, prenesti, razveljaviti ali bi moral prenehati le v vseh sodelujočih državah članicah.
It should be possible for a European patent with unitary effect to be licensed in respect of the whole or part of the territories of the participating Member States.
Treba bi bilo omogočiti, da bi se evropski patent z enotnim učinkom licenciral na celotnem ozemlju ali na delu ozemlja sodelujočih držav članic.
To ensure the uniform substantive scope of protection conferred by unitary patent protection, only European patents that have been granted for all the participating Member States with the same set of claims should benefit from unitary effect.
Za zagotovitev enotnega vsebinskega obsega varstva, ki ga zagotavlja enotno patentno varstvo, bi morali imeti enotni učinek le evropski patenti, ki so bili podeljeni za vse sodelujoče države članice na podlagi enakih zahtevkov.
Finally, the unitary effect attributed to a European patent should have an accessory nature and should be deemed not to have arisen to the extent that the basic European patent has been revoked or limited.
Poleg tega bi moral imeti enotni učinek evropskega patenta akcesorno naravo in bi bilo treba šteti, da tega učinka ni, če je osnovni evropski patent razveljavljen ali omejen.
In accordance with the general principles of patent law and Article 64(1) of the EPC, unitary patent protection should take effect retroactively in the participating Member States as from the date of publication of the mention of the grant of the European patent in the European Patent Bulletin.
V skladu s splošnimi načeli patentnega prava in členom 64(1) EPK bi enotno patentno varstvo moralo imeti retroaktivni učinek v sodelujočih državah članicah, od datuma objave omembe podelitve evropskega patenta v Evropskem patentnem biltenu.
Where unitary patent protection takes effect, the participating Member States should ensure that the European patent is deemed not to have taken effect on their territory as a national patent, so as to avoid any duplication of patent protection.
Ko začne enotno patentno varstvo učinkovati, bi morale sodelujoče države članice zagotoviti, da se šteje, da evropski patent na njihovem ozemlju ni začel učinkovati kot nacionalni patent, da se prepreči kakršno koli podvajanje patentnega varstva.
The European patent with unitary effect should confer on its proprietor the right to prevent any third party from committing acts against which the patent provides protection.
(9) Evropski patent z enotnim učinkom bi moral imetniku dati pravico, da kateri koli tretji osebi prepreči dejanja zoper katera patent zagotavlja varstvo.
This should be ensured through the establishment of a Unified Patent Court.
To bi bilo treba zagotoviti z ustanovitvijo Enotnega sodišča za patente.
In matters not covered by this Regulation or by Council Regulation (EU) No 1260/2012 of 17 December 2012 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of unitary patent protection with regard to the applicable translation arrangements [3], the provisions of the EPC, the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court, including its provisions defining the scope of that right and its limitations, and national law, including rules of private international law, should apply.
V zadevah, ki jih ne ureja ta uredba ali Uredba Sveta (EU) št. 1260/2012 z dne 17. decembra 2012 o izvajanju okrepljenega sodelovanja na področju uvedbe enotnega patentnega varstva v zvezi z veljavno ureditvijo prevajanja [3], bi se morali uporabljati EPK, Sporazum o Enotnem sodišču za patente, vključno z določbami o določitvi obsega navedene pravice in njenih omejitev, ter nacionalno pravo, vključno s pravili mednarodnega zasebnega prava.
Compulsory licences for European patents with unitary effect should be governed by the laws of the participating Member States as regards their respective territories.
Prisilne licence za evropske patente z enotnim učinkom bi moralo, kar zadeva posamezno ozemlje sodelujočih držav članic, urejati njihovo pravo.
In its report on the operation of this Regulation, the Commission should evaluate the functioning of the applicable limitations and, where necessary, make appropriate proposals, taking account of the contribution of the patent system to innovation and technological progress, the legitimate interests of third parties and overriding interests of society.
V svojem poročilu o izvajanju te uredbe bi morala Komisija oceniti delovanje veljavnih omejitev in po potrebi dati ustrezne predloge, ob upoštevanju prispevka patentnega sistema k inovacijam in tehnološkemu napredku, legitimnega interesa tretjih strani in prevladujočega interesa družbe.
The Agreement on a Unified Patent Court does not preclude the European Union from exercising its powers in this field.
Sporazum o Enotnem sodišču za patente ne preprečuje Evropski uniji izvajati pristojnosti na tem področju.
In accordance with the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the principle of the exhaustion of rights should also be applied to European patents with unitary effect.
V skladu s sodno prakso Sodišča Evropske unije bi bilo treba načelo izčrpanja pravic uporabljati tudi za evropske patente z enotnim učinkom.
Therefore, rights conferred by a European patent with unitary effect should not extend to acts concerning the product covered by that patent which are carried out within the participating Member States after that product has been placed on the market in the Union by the patent proprietor.
Zato pravice iz evropskega patenta z enotnim učinkom ne bi smele obsegati dejanj v zvezi z izdelkom, zajetim z navedenim patentom, ki se izvajajo v sodelujočih državah članicah, potem ko je imetnik patenta izdelek dal na trg v Uniji.
The regime applicable to damages should be governed by the laws of the participating Member States, in particular the provisions implementing Article 13 of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights [4].
Ureditev, ki se uporablja za odškodnine, bi morala biti določena v zakonodaji sodelujočih držav članic, zlasti z določbami za izvajanje člena 13 Direktive 2004/48/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 29. aprila 2004 o uveljavljanju pravic intelektualne lastnine [4].
As an object of property, a European patent with unitary effect should be dealt with in its entirety, and in all the participating Member States, as a national patent of the participating Member State determined in accordance with specific criteria such as the applicant’s residence, principal place of business or place of business.
(14) Evropski patent z enotnim učinkom bi bilo treba kot predmet lastnine obravnavati v celoti in v vseh sodelujočih državah članicah kot nacionalni patent sodelujoče države članice, določen v skladu s posebnimi merili, kot je na primer bivališče, glavni kraj poslovanja ali kraj poslovanja prijavitelja patenta.