natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Regulation (EU) No 655/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council
Uredba (EU) št. 655/2014 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta
establishing a European Account Preservation Order procedure to facilitate cross-border debt recovery in civil and commercial matters
o določitvi postopka za evropski nalog za zamrznitev bančnih računov z namenom olajšanja čezmejne izterjave dolgov v civilnih in gospodarskih 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 takega območja bo Unija sprejela ukrepe na področju pravosodnega sodelovanja v civilnih zadevah s čezmejnimi posledicami, zlasti kadar je to potrebno za pravilno delovanje notranjega trga.
In accordance with Article 81(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), such measures may include measures aimed at ensuring, inter alia, the mutual recognition and enforcement of judgments between Member States, effective access to justice and the elimination of obstacles to the proper functioning of civil proceedings, if necessary by promoting the compatibility of the rules on civil procedure applicable in the Member States.
V skladu s členom 81(2) Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije (PDEU) lahko taki ukrepi zajemajo ukrepe, katerih cilj je med drugim zagotoviti vzajemno priznavanje in izvrševanje sodb med državami članicami, učinkovit dostop do sodnega varstva in odpravo ovir za nemoten potek civilnih postopkov, po potrebi s spodbujanjem združljivosti pravil o civilnem postopku, ki se uporabljajo v državah članicah.
On 24 October 2006, by way of the ‘Green Paper on improving the efficiency of the enforcement of judgments in the European Union: the attachment of bank accounts’, the Commission launched a consultation on the need for a uniform European procedure for the preservation of bank accounts and the possible features of such a procedure.
Komisija je 24. oktobra 2006 z zeleno knjigo o izboljšanju učinkovitosti izvrševanja sodnih odločb v Evropski uniji – zaplemba bančnih računov – začela posvetovanje o potrebi po enotnem evropskem postopku za zamrznitev bančnih računov in morebitnih značilnostih takega postopka.
In the Stockholm Programme of December 2009 [3], which sets freedom, security and justice priorities for 2010 to 2014, the European Council invited the Commission to assess the need for, and the feasibility of, providing for certain provisional, including protective, measures at Union level, to prevent for example the disappearance of assets before the enforcement of a claim, and to put forward appropriate proposals for improving the efficiency of enforcement of judgments in the Union regarding bank accounts and debtors’ assets.
Evropski svet je v stockholmskem programu iz decembra 2009 [3], v katerem so določene prednostne naloge na področju svobode, varnosti in pravice za obdobje 2010–2014, Komisijo pozval, da preuči potrebo po in izvedljivost sprejetja določenih začasnih ukrepov, tudi zaščitnih, na ravni Unije, s katerimi bi na primer preprečili izginotje sredstev pred izvršitvijo zahtevka, ter predloži ustrezne predloge za izboljšanje učinkovitosti izvrševanja sodnih odločb v Uniji v zvezi z bančnimi računi in premoženjem dolžnikov.
National procedures for obtaining protective measures such as account preservation orders exist in all Member States, but the conditions for the grant of such measures and the efficiency of their implementation vary considerably.
Nacionalni postopki za pridobitev zaščitnih ukrepov, kot so nalogi za zamrznitev računov, obstajajo v vseh državah članicah, vendar se pogoji za odobritev takih ukrepov in učinkovitost njihovega izvajanja precej razlikujejo.
Moreover, recourse to national protective measures may prove cumbersome in cases having cross-border implications, in particular when the creditor seeks to preserve several accounts located in different Member States.
Poleg tega se lahko v primerih s čezmejnimi posledicami zatekanje k nacionalnim zaščitnim ukrepom izkaže za oteženo, v primerih, kadar upnik poskuša zamrzniti več računov v različnih državah članicah.
It therefore seems necessary and appropriate to adopt a binding and directly applicable legal instrument of the Union which establishes a new Union procedure allowing, in cross-border cases, for the preservation, in an efficient and speedy way, of funds held in bank accounts.
Zato se zdi potrebno in ustrezno sprejeti zavezujoč pravni instrument Unije, ki se neposredno uporablja in s katerim se določi nov postopek Unije, ki v čezmejnih primerih omogoča učinkovito in hitro zamrznitev sredstev na bančnih računih.
The procedure established by this Regulation should serve as an additional and optional means for the creditor, who remains free to make use of any other procedure for obtaining an equivalent measure under national law.
Postopek, uveden s to uredbo, bi moral biti za upnika dodatno in neobvezno sredstvo, ki mu dopušča, da uporabi kateri koli drug postopek za pridobitev enakovrednega ukrepa v skladu z nacionalnim pravom.
A creditor should be able to obtain a protective measure in the form of a European Account Preservation Order (‘Preservation Order’ or ‘Order’) preventing the transfer or withdrawal of funds held by his debtor in a bank account maintained in a Member State if there is a risk that, without such a measure, the subsequent enforcement of his claim against the debtor will be impeded or made substantially more difficult.
Upniku bi moralo biti omogočeno, da pridobi zaščitni ukrep v obliki evropskega naloga za zamrznitev bančnih računov (v nadaljnjem besedilu: nalog za zamrznitev ali nalog), ki bi preprečil prenos ali dvig sredstev, ki jih ima dolžnik na bančnem računu v državi članici, če obstaja tveganje, da bo brez takega ukrepa naknadna izvršitev upnikovega zahtevka zoper dolžnika ovirana ali precej otežena.
The preservation of funds held in the debtor’s account should have the effect of preventing not only the debtor himself, but also persons authorised by him to make payments through that account, for example by way of a standing order or through direct debit or the use of a credit card, from using the funds.
Zamrznitev sredstev na dolžnikovem računu bi morala imeti za posledico preprečitev, da sredstev ne bi uporabljal niti dolžnik sam niti osebe, ki jih je dolžnik pooblastil za opravljanje plačil prek tega računa, na primer prek trajnika, z direktno obremenitvijo ali z uporabo kreditne kartice.
The scope of this Regulation should cover all civil and commercial matters apart from certain well-defined matters.
Področje uporabe te uredbe bi moralo zajemati vse civilne in gospodarske zadeve, razen nekaterih natančno določenih zadev.
In particular, this Regulation should not apply to claims against a debtor in insolvency proceedings.
Ta uredba se zlasti ne bi smela uporabljati za zahtevke zoper dolžnika v postopkih zaradi insolventnosti.
This should mean that no Preservation Order can be issued against the debtor once insolvency proceedings as defined in Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 [4] have been opened in relation to him.
To bi moralo pomeniti, da nalog za zamrznitev zoper dolžnika ne more biti izdan po tem, ko so bili v zvezi z njim uvedeni postopki zaradi insolventnosti, kot so opredeljeni v Uredbi Sveta (ES) št. 1346/2000 [4].
On the other hand, the exclusion should allow the Preservation Order to be used to secure the recovery of detrimental payments made by such a debtor to third parties.
Po drugi strani bi izključitev morala omogočiti, da se nalog za zamrznitev uporabi za zagotovitev izterjave škodljivih plačil takega dolžnika tretjim osebam.
This Regulation should apply to accounts held with credit institutions whose business is to take deposits or other repayable funds from the public and to grant credits for their own account.
Ta uredba bi se morala uporabljati za račune pri kreditnih institucijah, katerih dejavnost je sprejemanje depozitov ali drugih vračljivih sredstev od javnosti ter odobravanje kreditov za svoj račun.
It should thus not apply to financial institutions which do not take such deposits, for instance institutions providing financing for export and investment projects or projects in developing countries or institutions providing financial market services.
Zato se ne bi smela uporabljati za finančne institucije, ki ne sprejemajo takih depozitov, na primer institucije, ki zagotavljajo finančna sredstva za izvoz in naložbene projekte ali projekte v državah v razvoju, ali institucije, ki zagotavljajo storitve na finančnem trgu.
Furthermore, this Regulation should not apply to accounts held by or with central banks when acting in their capacity as monetary authorities, nor to accounts that cannot be preserved by national orders equivalent to a Preservation Order or which are otherwise immune from seizure under the law of the Member State where the account in question is maintained.
Ta uredba se prav tako ne bi smela uporabljati za račune centralnih bank ali račune, odprte pri centralnih bankah, kadar te delujejo kot monetarni organ, ali račune, ki jih ni mogoče zamrzniti z nacionalnimi nalogi, ki so enakovredni nalogu za zamrznitev ali so drugače izvzeti iz zasega v skladu s pravom države članice, v kateri je zadevni račun.
This Regulation should apply to cross-border cases only and should define what constitutes a cross-border case in this particular context.
Ta uredba bi se morala uporabljati zgolj za čezmejne primere in v njej bi moralo biti določeno, kaj je v tem kontekstu čezmejni primer.
For the purposes of this Regulation, a cross-border case should be considered to exist when the court dealing with the application for the Preservation Order is located in one Member State and the bank account concerned by the Order is maintained in another Member State.
Za namene te uredbe bi moralo veljati, da gre za čezmejni primer takrat, kadar je sodišče, ki obravnava vlogo za izdajo naloga za zamrznitev, v eni državi članici, bančni račun, ki je predmet naloga, pa v drugi državi članici.
A cross-border case should also be considered to exist when the creditor is domiciled in one Member State and the court and the bank account to be preserved are located in another Member State.
Da gre za čezmejni primer, bi moralo veljati tudi, kadar ima upnik stalno prebivališče v eni državi članici, sodišče in bančni račun, ki ga je treba zamrzniti, pa sta v drugi državi članici.
This Regulation should not apply to the preservation of accounts maintained in the Member State of the court seized of the application for the Preservation Order if the creditor’s domicile is also in that Member State, even if the creditor applies at the same time for a Preservation Order which concerns an account or accounts maintained in another Member State.
Ta uredba se ne bi smela uporabljati za zamrznitev računov, ki so v državi članici sodišča, ki obravnava vlogo za izdajo naloga za zamrznitev, če ima tudi upnik stalno prebivališče v navedeni državi članici, čeprav upnik istočasno vloži vlogo za izdajo naloga za zamrznitev, ki se nanaša na račun oziroma račune, ki so v drugi državi članici.
In such a case, the creditor should make two separate applications, one for a Preservation Order and one for a national measure.
V takem primeru bi moral upnik podati ločeni vlogi, eno za izdajo naloga za zamrznitev in drugo za nacionalni ukrep.
The procedure for a Preservation Order should be available to a creditor wishing to secure the enforcement of a later judgment on the substance of the matter prior to initiating proceedings on the substance of the matter and at any stage during such proceedings.
Postopek v zvezi z nalogom za zamrznitev bi moral biti na voljo upniku, ki želi zagotoviti izvršitev poznejše odločbe o glavni stvari pred začetkom postopka v glavni stvari in v kateri koli fazi takega postopka.
It should also be available to a creditor who has already obtained a judgment, court settlement or authentic instrument requiring the debtor to pay the creditor’s claim.
Na voljo bi moral biti tudi upniku, ki je že pridobil sodno odločbo, sodno poravnavo ali javno listino, ki določa, da mora dolžnik poravnati upnikov zahtevek.
The Preservation Order should be available for the purpose of securing claims that have already fallen due.
Nalog za zamrznitev bi moral biti na voljo za namen zavarovanja zahtevkov, ki so že zapadli v plačilo.
It should also be available for claims that are not yet due as long as such claims arise from a transaction or an event that has already occurred and their amount can be determined, including claims relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict and civil claims for damages or restitution which are based on an act giving rise to criminal proceedings.
Na voljo bi moral biti tudi za zahtevke, ki še niso zapadli v plačilo, kolikor izhajajo iz transakcije ali dogodka, do katerega je že prišlo, in je njihov znesek mogoče določiti, vključno z zahtevki v zvezi z deliktom ali kvazideliktom in tožbenimi zahtevki za odškodnino ali za vrnitev v prejšnje stanje, ki temeljijo na dejanju, zaradi katerega je bil uveden kazenski postopek.
A creditor should be able to request that the Preservation Order be issued in the amount of the principal claim or in a lower amount.
Upniku bi moralo biti omogočeno, da zahteva, da se nalog za zamrznitev izda za višino glavnice zahtevka ali za nižji znesek.
The latter may be in his interest, for instance, where he has already obtained some other security for part of his claim.
To je lahko denimo v njegovem interesu, če je za del svojega zahtevka že prejel kako drugo varščino.
In order to ensure a close link between the proceedings for the Preservation Order and the proceedings on the substance of the matter, international jurisdiction to issue the Order should lie with the courts of the Member State whose courts have jurisdiction to rule on the substance of the matter.
Da bi zagotovili tesno povezavo med postopki za izdajo naloga za zamrznitev in postopki v glavni stvari, bi morala mednarodno pristojnost za izdajo naloga imeti sodišča države članice, katere sodišča so pristojna za odločanje o glavni stvari.
For the purposes of this Regulation, the notion of proceedings on the substance of the matter should cover any proceedings aimed at obtaining an enforceable title on the underlying claim including, for instance, summary proceedings concerning orders to pay and proceedings such as the French ‘procédure de référé’.
Za namene te uredbe bi moral pojem postopek v glavni stvari zajemati vse postopke, katerih cilj je pridobitev izvršljivega naslova za zadevni zahtevek, vključno s skrajšanimi postopki v zvezi s plačilnimi nalogi in postopki, kakršen je francoski „procédure de référé“ (postopek za izdajo začasne odredbe).
If the debtor is a consumer domiciled in a Member State, jurisdiction to issue the Order should lie only with the courts of that Member State.
Če je dolžnik potrošnik s stalnim prebivališčem v državi članici, bi morala pristojnost za izdajo naloga imeti zgolj sodišča te države članice.
The conditions for issuing the Preservation Order should strike an appropriate balance between the interest of the creditor in obtaining an Order and the interest of the debtor in preventing abuse of the Order.
Pri pogojih za izdajo naloga za zamrznitev bi bilo treba doseči ustrezno ravnotežje med interesom upnika, da pridobi nalog, in interesom dolžnika, da prepreči zlorabo naloga.
Consequently, when the creditor applies for a Preservation Order prior to obtaining a judgment, the court with which the application is lodged should have to be satisfied on the basis of the evidence submitted by the creditor that the creditor is likely to succeed on the substance of his claim against the debtor.
Kadar upnik vloži vlogo za izdajo naloga za zamrznitev pred pridobitvijo sodne odločbe, bi zato sodišče, pri katerem je vloga vložena, na podlagi dokazov, ki jih predloži upnik, moralo ugotoviti, da bo upnik verjetno uspel z zahtevkom v glavni stvari zoper dolžnika.
Furthermore, the creditor should be required in all situations, including when he has already obtained a judgment, to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the court that his claim is in urgent need of judicial protection and that, without the Order, the enforcement of the existing or a future judgment may be impeded or made substantially more difficult because there is a real risk that, by the time the creditor is able to have the existing or a future judgment enforced, the debtor may have dissipated, concealed or destroyed his assets or have disposed of them under value, to an unusual extent or through unusual action.
Poleg tega bi moral upnik v vseh primerih, vključno kadar je že pridobil sodno odločbo, sodišču dokazati v zadostni meri, da njegov zahtevek nujno potrebuje sodno varstvo in da bo izvršitev obstoječe ali prihodnje sodne odločbe brez naloga lahko ovirana ali precej otežena, ker obstaja dejansko tveganje, da bi lahko dolžnik, še preden bi upnik uspel doseči izvršitev obstoječe ali prihodnje sodne odločbe, porabil, prikril ali uničil svoja sredstva oziroma jih prodal pod ceno ali v neobičajnem obsegu ali na neobičajen način.
The court should assess the evidence submitted by the creditor to support the existence of such a risk.
Sodišče bi moralo presoditi dokaze, ki jih predloži upnik in potrjujejo obstoj takega tveganja.
This could relate, for instance, to the debtor’s conduct in respect of the creditor’s claim or in a previous dispute between the parties, to the debtor’s credit history, to the nature of the debtor’s assets and to any recent action taken by the debtor with regard to his assets.
Ti bi se lahko denimo nanašali na dolžnikovo ravnanje v zvezi z upnikovim zahtevkom ali na njegovo ravnanje v prejšnjem sporu med strankama, na prejšnje dolžnikove kredite, na naravo dolžnikovih sredstev in na vsako nedavno dolžnikovo dejanje v povezavi z njegovim premoženjem.
In assessing the evidence, the court may consider that withdrawals from accounts and instances of expenditure by the debtor to sustain the normal course of his business or recurrent family expenses are not, in themselves, unusual.
Sodišče lahko pri presoji dokazov zavzame stališče, da dvigi sredstev z računov in izdatki dolžnika za normalno poslovanje ali redni družinski izdatki sami po sebi niso neobičajni.
The mere non-payment or contesting of the claim or the mere fact that the debtor has more than one creditor should not, in themselves, be considered sufficient evidence to justify the issuing of an Order.
Zgolj neplačilo zahtevka, ugovor zahtevku ali dejstvo, da ima dolžnik več kot enega upnika, sami po sebi ne bi smeli biti zadosten dokaz, ki upravičuje izdajo naloga.
Nor should the mere fact that the financial circumstances of the debtor are poor or deteriorating, in itself, constitute a sufficient ground for the issuing of an Order.
Podobno tudi zgolj dejstvo, da je finančno stanje dolžnika slabo ali se poslabšuje, samo po sebi ne bi smelo biti zadosten razlog za izdajo naloga.
However, the court may take these factors into account in the overall assessment of the existence of the risk.
Vendar lahko sodišče te dejavnike upošteva pri splošni presoji obstoja tveganja.
In order to ensure the surprise effect of the Preservation Order, and to ensure that it will be a useful tool for a creditor trying to recover debts from a debtor in cross-border cases, the debtor should not be informed about the creditor’s application nor be heard prior to the issue of the Order or notified of the Order prior to its implementation.
Za zagotovitev, da bi imel nalog za zamrznitev učinek presenečenja ter za zagotovitev, da bi bil koristen instrument za upnika, ki skuša izterjati dolgove od dolžnika v čezmejnih primerih, dolžnik ne bi smel biti niti obveščen o upnikovi vlogi niti zaslišan pred izdajo naloga ali uradno obveščen o nalogu pred njegovo izvedbo.
Where, on the basis of the evidence and information provided by the creditor or, if applicable, by his witness(es), the court is not satisfied that the preservation of the account or accounts in question is justified, it should not issue the Order.
Kadar sodišče na podlagi dokazov in informacij, ki jih predloži upnik oziroma njegova morebitna priča ali priče, ugotovi, da zamrznitev zadevnega računa oziroma računov ni upravičena, naloga ne bi smelo izdati.
In situations where the creditor applies for a Preservation Order before initiating proceedings on the substance of the matter before a court, this Regulation should oblige him to initiate such proceedings within a specified period of time and should also oblige him to provide proof of such initiation to the court with which he lodged his application for an Order.
V primerih, ko upnik vloži vlogo za nalog za zamrznitev pred začetkom postopka v glavni stvari pred sodiščem, bi ga morala ta uredba zavezovati, da tovrsten postopek začne v določenem roku in da sodišču, pri katerem je vložil vlogo za izdajo naloga, zagotovi dokaze o takem začetku postopka.
Should the creditor fail to comply with this obligation, the Order should be revoked by the court of its own motion or should terminate automatically.
Če upnik ne bi spoštoval te obveznosti, bi moralo sodišče nalog na lastno pobudo razveljaviti ali pa bi nalog moral samodejno prenehati veljati.
In view of the absence of a prior hearing of the debtor, this Regulation should provide for specific safeguards in order to prevent abuse of the Order and to protect the debtor’s rights.
Glede na to, da ni predhodnega zaslišanja dolžnika, bi morali biti v tej uredbi določeni posebni zaščitni ukrepi, da se prepreči zloraba naloga in se zavarujejo dolžnikove pravice.
One such important safeguard should be the possibility of requiring the creditor to provide security so as to ensure that the debtor can be compensated at a later stage for any damage caused to him by the Preservation Order.
Eden takih ključnih zaščitnih ukrepov bi morala biti možnost, da se od upnika zahteva varščina, s katero se zagotovi, da bo dolžniku pozneje mogoče nadomestiti morebitno škodo, ki jo utrpi zaradi naloga za zamrznitev.
Depending on national law, such security could be provided in the form of a security deposit or an alternative assurance, such as a bank guarantee or a mortgage.
Glede na to, kaj določa nacionalno pravo, bi se lahko taka varščina zagotovila v obliki varnostnega pologa ali drugačnega jamstva, kot je bančna garancija ali hipoteka.
The court should have discretion in determining the amount of security sufficient to prevent abuse of the Order and to ensure compensation to the debtor and it should be open to the court, in the absence of specific evidence as to the amount of the potential damage, to consider the amount in which the Order is to be issued as a guideline for determining the amount of the security.
Sodišče bi moralo imeti diskrecijsko pravico pri določanju zneska varščine, ki zadošča za preprečitev zlorabe naloga in za zagotovitev nadomestila škode dolžniku, in sodišču bi, če ni konkretnega dokaza o višini morebitne škode, moralo biti prepuščeno, da znesek, za katerega se izda nalog, šteje kot smernico za določitev zneska varščine.
In cases where the creditor has not yet obtained a judgment, court settlement or authentic instrument requiring the debtor to pay the creditor’s claim, the provision of security should be the rule and the court should dispense with this requirement, or require the provision of security in a lower amount, only exceptionally if it considers that such security is inappropriate, superfluous or disproportionate in the circumstances of the case.
V primerih, ko upnik še ni pridobil sodne odločbe, sodne poravnave ali javne listine, ki od dolžnika zahteva poplačilo upnikovega zahtevka, bi morala biti zagotovitev varščine pravilo, sodišče pa bi lahko to zahtevo odpravilo ali zahtevalo zagotovitev nižjega zneska varščine le izjemoma, če meni, da glede na okoliščine zadeve taka varščina ni ustrezna, ni potrebna ali je nesorazmerna.