natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Where a request for disclosure aims to obtain a category of evidence, that category should be identified by reference to common features of its constitutive elements such as the nature, object or content of the documents the disclosure of which is requested, the time during which they were drawn up, or other criteria, provided that the evidence falling within the category is relevant within the meaning of this Directive.
Kadar sodišče ene države članice zahteva od pristojnega sodišča druge države članice, da pridobi dokaze, ali zahteva, da se dokazi neposredno pridobijo v drugi državi članici, se uporabijo določbe Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 1206/2001 [4].
Such categories should be defined as precisely and narrowly as possible on the basis of reasonably available facts.
Čeprav bi morali biti ustrezni dokazi, ki vsebujejo poslovne skrivnosti ali sicer zaupne informacije, v postopkih z odškodninskimi tožbami načeloma na voljo, pa je treba takšne zaupne informacije ustrezno zaščititi.
Where a court in one Member State requests a competent court in another Member State to take evidence or requests that evidence be taken directly in another Member State, the provisions of Council Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001 [4] apply.
Nacionalnim sodiščem bi morala biti zato na voljo vrsta ukrepov za zaščito takšnih zaupnih informacij pred razkritjem v postopku.
While relevant evidence containing business secrets or otherwise confidential information should, in principle, be available in actions for damages, such confidential information needs to be protected appropriately.
Ti ukrepi bi lahko vključevali možnost prilagoditve občutljivih delov dokumentov, zaslišanj za zaprtimi vrati, ki omejujejo krog oseb, upravičenih prisostvovati razkritju dokazov, in navodila izvedencem za pripravo povzetkov informacij v zgoščeni ali sicer nezaupni obliki.
National courts should therefore have at their disposal a range of measures to protect such confidential information from being disclosed during the proceedings.
Vendar pa ukrepi za varstvo poslovnih skrivnosti in drugih zaupnih podatkov ne bi smeli ovirati uveljavljanja pravice do nadomestila.
Those measures could include the possibility of redacting sensitive passages in documents, conducting hearings in camera, restricting the persons allowed to see the evidence, and instructing experts to produce summaries of the information in an aggregated or otherwise non-confidential form.
Ta direktiva ne vpliva na možnost uveljavljanja pravnih sredstev v skladu s pravom države članice zoper odredbo o razkritju niti na pogoje za uporabo teh pravnih sredstev.
Measures protecting business secrets and other confidential information should, nevertheless, not impede the exercise of the right to compensation.
Uredba (ES) št. 1049/2001 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta [5] ureja dostop javnosti do dokumentov Evropskega parlamenta, Sveta in Komisije z namenom zagotoviti javnosti pravico do čim širšega dostopa do dokumentov teh institucij.
This Directive affects neither the possibility under the laws of the Member States to appeal disclosure orders, nor the conditions for bringing such appeals.
Za to pravico sicer veljajo nekatere omejitve na podlagi javnega ali zasebnega interesa.
Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council [5] governs public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, and is designed to confer on the public as wide a right of access as possible to documents of those institutions.
To pomeni, da sistem izjem iz člena 4 navedene uredbe temelji na uravnoteženosti nasprotujočih si interesov v dani situaciji, in sicer najprej interesa, ki bi ga zbudilo razkritje zadevnih dokumentov, zatem pa še interesa, ki bi ga tako razkritje ogrozilo.
That right is nonetheless subject to certain limits based on reasons of public or private interest.
Ta direktiva ne bi smela posegati v tovrstna pravila in prakse iz Uredbe (ES) št. 1049/2001.
It follows that the system of exceptions laid down in Article 4 of that Regulation is based on a balancing of the opposing interests in a given situation, namely, the interests which would be favoured by the disclosure of the documents in question and those which would be jeopardised by such disclosure.
Da bi lahko Komisija in nacionalni organi, pristojni za konkurenco, učinkovito in dosledno uporabljali člena 101 in 102 PDEU, je potreben enoten pristop na ravni Unije glede razkritja dokazov, ki so del spisa organa, pristojnega za konkurenco.
This Directive should be without prejudice to such rules and practices under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001.
Razkritje dokazov ne bi smelo neupravičeno ovirati učinkovitosti organov, pristojnih za konkurenco, pri izvajanju konkurenčnega prava.
The effectiveness and consistency of the application of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU by the Commission and the national competition authorities require a common approach across the Union on the disclosure of evidence that is included in the file of a competition authority.
Ta direktiva ne zajema razkritja notranjih dokumentov organov, pristojnih za konkurenco, ali korespondence med temi organi.
Disclosure of evidence should not unduly detract from the effectiveness of the enforcement of competition law by a competition authority.
Zaradi zagotovitve učinkovitega varstva pravice do odškodnine ni treba, da se tožniku razkrijejo vsi dokumenti, povezani s postopkom na podlagi člena 101 ali 102 PDEU, samo na podlagi njegove namere vložitve odškodninske tožbe, saj je malo verjetno, da bi morala odškodninska tožba temeljiti na vseh dokazih v spisu v zvezi s temi postopki.
This Directive does not cover the disclosure of internal documents of, or correspondence between, competition authorities.
Zahtevo po sorazmernosti bi bilo treba skrbno oceniti tudi takrat, kadar bi razkritje pomenilo vpogled v preiskovalno strategijo organa, pristojnega za konkurenco, ker bi razkrilo, kateri dokumenti so del spisa, ali kadar bi negativno vplivalo na način sodelovanja podjetij z organi, pristojnimi za konkurenco.
In order to ensure the effective protection of the right to compensation, it is not necessary that every document relating to proceedings under Article 101 or 102 TFEU be disclosed to a claimant merely on the grounds of the claimant's intended action for damages since it is highly unlikely that the action for damages will need to be based on all the evidence in the file relating to those proceedings.
Posebno pozornost bi bilo treba posvetiti preprečevanju iskanja na slepo, tj. vsesplošnemu iskanju ali preširokemu iskanju informacij, ki po vsej verjetnosti niso pomembne za stranke v postopku.
The requirement of proportionality should be carefully assessed when disclosure risks unravelling the investigation strategy of a competition authority by revealing which documents are part of the file or risks having a negative effect on the way in which undertakings cooperate with the competition authorities.
Zahtevki za razkritje zato ne bi smeli veljati za sorazmerne, kadar se sklicujejo na splošno razkritje dokumentov iz spisa organa, pristojnega za konkurenco, v zvezi z določeno zadevo ali dokumentov, ki jih predloži stranka v določeni zadevi.
Particular attention should be paid to preventing ‘fishing expeditions’, i.e. non-specific or overly broad searches for information that is unlikely to be of relevance for the parties to the proceedings.
Zahtevki za tako obsežno razkritje tudi ne bi bili združljivi z dolžnostjo vložnika zahtevka, da kar najbolj natančno in podrobno opredeli posamezne dokaze ali vrste dokazov.
Disclosure requests should therefore not be deemed to be proportionate where they refer to the generic disclosure of documents in the file of a competition authority relating to a certain case, or the generic disclosure of documents submitted by a party in the context of a particular case.
Ta direktiva ne vpliva na pravico sodišč, ki lahko v skladu s pravom Unije ali nacionalnim pravom obravnavajo interes učinkovitega izvajanja konkurenčnega prava v javnem interesu v primeru odredbe razkritja katere koli vrste dokazov, razen izjav zaradi prizanesljivosti in vlog za poravnavo.
Such wide disclosure requests would not be compatible with the requesting party's duty to specify the items of evidence or the categories of evidence as precisely and narrowly as possible.
Za razkritja, ki bi, če bi bila odobrena, neupravičeno posegla v tekočo preiskavo organa, pristojnega za konkurenco, v zvezi s kršitvijo konkurenčnega prava Unije ali nacionalnega konkurenčnega prava, bi bilo treba uporabiti izjemo.
This Directive does not affect the right of courts to consider, under Union or national law, the interests of the effective public enforcement of competition law when ordering the disclosure of any type of evidence with the exception of leniency statements and settlement submissions.
Informacije, ki jih je pripravil in strankam v postopku poslal organ, pristojen za konkurenco, v postopku izvajanja konkurenčnega prava Unije ali nacionalnega konkurenčnega prava (kot je obvestilo o nasprotovanju) oziroma jih je pripravila stranka v takšnem postopku (kot so odgovori na zahteve organa, pristojnega za konkurenco, po informacijah ali izjave prič), bi se smele v postopkih z odškodninskimi tožbami torej razkriti šele po tem, ko organ, pristojen za konkurenco, konča svoj postopek, na primer s sprejetjem odločbe na podlagi člena 5 ali poglavja III Uredbe (ES) št. 1/2003, razen odločb o začasnih ukrepih.
An exemption should apply in respect of any disclosure that, if granted, would unduly interfere with an ongoing investigation by a competition authority concerning an infringement of Union or national competition law.
Programi prizanesljivosti in poravnalni postopki so pomemben instrument izvajanja konkurenčnega prava Unije v javnem interesu, saj prispevajo k odkrivanju in učinkovitemu pregonu najhujših kršitev konkurenčnega prava ter nalaganju kazni zanje.
Information that was prepared by a competition authority in the course of its proceedings for the enforcement of Union or national competition law and sent to the parties to those proceedings (such as a ‘Statement of Objections’) or prepared by a party thereto (such as replies to requests for information of the competition authority or witness statements) should therefore be disclosable in actions for damages only after the competition authority has closed its proceedings, for instance by adopting a decision under Article 5 or under Chapter III of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, with the exception of decisions on interim measures.
Ker poleg tega številne odločbe organov, pristojnih za konkurenco, v kartelnih zadevah temeljijo na prijavah zaradi prizanesljivosti, odškodninske tožbe v kartelnih zadevah pa običajno izvirajo iz teh odločb, so programi prizanesljivosti prav tako pomembni za uspešne odškodninske tožbe v kartelnih zadevah.
Leniency programmes and settlement procedures are important tools for the public enforcement of Union competition law as they contribute to the detection and efficient prosecution of, and the imposition of penalties for, the most serious infringements of competition law.
Podjetja se lahko odvrnejo od sodelovanja z organi, pristojnimi za konkurenco v okviru programov prizanesljivosti in poravnalnih postopkov, če bi bile razkrite samoobtoževalne izjave, kot so izjave zaradi prizanesljivosti in vloge za poravnavo, ki se pripravijo zgolj zaradi sodelovanja z organi, pristojnimi za konkurenco.
Furthermore, as many decisions of competition authorities in cartel cases are based on a leniency application, and damages actions in cartel cases generally follow on from those decisions, leniency programmes are also important for the effectiveness of actions for damages in cartel cases.
Takšno razkritje bi lahko sodelujoča podjetja ali njihovo vodstveno osebje izpostavilo civilni ali kazenski odgovornosti pod pogoji, ki so težji kot pogoji sokršiteljev, ki ne sodelujejo z organi, pristojnimi za konkurenco.
Undertakings might be deterred from cooperating with competition authorities under leniency programmes and settlement procedures if self-incriminating statements such as leniency statements and settlement submissions, which are produced for the sole purpose of cooperating with the competition authorities, were to be disclosed.
Da bi zagotovili nadaljnjo pripravljenost podjetij, da prostovoljno stopijo v stik z organi, pristojnimi za konkurenco, ter jim predložijo izjave zaradi prizanesljivosti ali vloge za poravnavo, bi bilo treba takšne dokumente izvzeti iz odredbe o razkritju dokazov.
Such disclosure would pose a risk of exposing cooperating undertakings or their managing staff to civil or criminal liability under conditions worse than those of co-infringers not cooperating with the competition authorities.
Navedeno odstopanje bi bilo treba uporabiti tudi za dobesedne navedbe iz izjave zaradi prizanesljivosti ali vloge za poravnavo, ki so vključeni v druge dokumente.
To ensure undertakings' continued willingness to approach competition authorities voluntarily with leniency statements or settlement submissions, such documents should be exempted from the disclosure of evidence.
Omejitve razkritja dokazov ne bi smele preprečevati organom, pristojnim za konkurenco, da objavijo svoje odločitve v skladu s pravom Unije ali nacionalnim pravom.
That exemption should also apply to verbatim quotations from leniency statements or settlement submissions included in other documents.
Za zagotovitev, da to izvzetje ne posega neupravičeno v pravico oškodovancev do odškodnine, bi moralo biti omejeno na navedene prostovoljne in samoobtoževalne izjave zaradi prizanesljivosti in vloge za poravnavo.
Those limitations on the disclosure of evidence should not prevent competition authorities from publishing their decisions in accordance with the applicable Union or national law.
Pravila iz te direktive o razkritju dokumentov, razen izjav o prizanesljivosti in vlog za poravnavo, zagotavljajo, da imajo oškodovanci vseeno dovolj drugih možnosti za pridobitev dostopa do ustreznih dokazov, ki jih potrebujejo za pripravo odškodninske tožbe.
In order to ensure that that exemption does not unduly interfere with injured parties' rights to compensation, it should be limited to those voluntary and self-incriminating leniency statements and settlement submissions.
Nacionalnim sodiščem bi bilo treba na zahtevo tožnika omogočiti dostop do dokumentov, za katere se uveljavlja izjema, da se ugotovi, da njihova vsebina ne presega opredelitev izjav prizanesljivosti in vlog za poravnavo iz te direktive.
The rules in this Directive on the disclosure of documents other than leniency statements and settlement submissions ensure that injured parties retain sufficient alternative means by which to obtain access to the relevant evidence that they need in order to prepare their actions for damages.
Vsakršna vsebina, ki presega ti dve opredelitvi, bi se smela razkriti pod ustreznimi pogoji.
National courts should themselves be able, upon request by a claimant, to access documents in respect of which the exemption is invoked in order to verify whether the contents thereof fall outside the definitions of leniency statements and settlement submissions laid down in this Directive.
Nacionalna sodišča bi morala imeti možnost, da kadar koli v okviru odškodninske tožbe odredijo razkritje dokazov, ki obstajajo neodvisno od postopka organa, pristojnega za konkurenco („predhodne informacije“).
Any content falling outside those definitions should be disclosable under the relevant conditions.
Organ, pristojen za konkurenco, bi moral razkritje dokazov odrediti le, ko jih ni mogoče pod razumnimi pogoji pridobiti od druge stranke ali tretje osebe.
National courts should be able, at any time, to order, in the context of an action for damages, the disclosure of evidence that exists independently of the proceedings of a competition authority (‘pre-existing information’).
V skladu s členom 15(3) Uredbe (ES) št. 1/2003 lahko organi, pristojni za konkurenco, na lastno pobudo nacionalnim sodiščem pisno predložijo pripombe o vprašanjih glede uporabe člena 101 ali 102 PDEU.
The disclosure of evidence should be ordered from a competition authority only when that evidence cannot reasonably be obtained from another party or from a third party.
Zaradi ohranitve prispevka izvajanja v javnem interesu k uporabi navedenih členov bi morali imeti organi, pristojni za konkurenco, tudi možnost, da na lastno pobudo nacionalnemu sodišču predložijo pripombe za namene ocene sorazmernosti razkritja dokazov, vključenih v spis organa, ob upoštevanju učinka, ki bi ga takšno razkritje lahko imelo na učinkovitost izvajanja konkurenčnega prava v javnem interesu.
Pursuant to Article 15(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, competition authorities, acting upon their own initiative, can submit written observations to national courts on issues relating to the application of Article 101 or 102 TFEU.
Države članice bi morale imeti možnost, da vzpostavijo sistem, v skladu s katerim se organ, pristojen za konkurenco, obvesti o zahtevkih za razkritje informacij, če je oseba, ki zahteva razkritje, ali oseba, od katere se razkritje zahteva, vpletena v preiskavo organa, pristojnega za konkurenco, glede domnevne kršitve, ne da bi to posegalo v nacionalno pravo o postopkih ex parte.
In order to preserve the contribution made by public enforcement to the application of those Articles, competition authorities should likewise be able, acting upon their own initiative, to submit their observations to a national court for the purpose of assessing the proportionality of a disclosure of evidence included in the authorities' files, in light of the impact that such disclosure would have on the effectiveness of the public enforcement of competition law.
Vsaka fizična ali pravna oseba, ki pridobi dokaze z dostopom do spisa organa, pristojnega za konkurenco, bi lahko te dokaze uporabila za namene odškodninske tožbe, katere stranka je.
Member States should be able to set up a system whereby a competition authority is informed of requests for disclosure of information when the person requesting disclosure or the person from whom disclosure is sought is involved in that competition authority's investigation into the alleged infringement, without prejudice to national law providing for ex parte proceedings.
Takšno uporabo bi bilo treba dovoliti tudi fizični ali pravni osebi, ki je pravni naslednik pravic in obveznosti stranke, vključno prek pravnega nasledstva zahtevka stranke.
Any natural or legal person that obtains evidence through access to the file of a competition authority should be able to use that evidence for the purposes of an action for damages to which it is a party.
Kadar je dokaz pridobila pravna oseba iz skupine podjetij, ki za namene uporabe členov 101 in 102 PDEU pomeni eno podjetje, bi se morala uporaba takšnega dokaza dovoliti tudi drugim pravnim osebam iz istega podjetja.
Such use should also be allowed on the part of any natural or legal person that succeeded in its rights and obligations, including through the acquisition of its claim.
Vendar pa uporaba dokazov, pridobljenih z dostopom do spisa organa, pristojnega za konkurenco, ne bi smela neupravičeno omejevati učinkovitega izvrševanja konkurenčnega prava s strani organa, pristojnega za konkurenco.
Where the evidence was obtained by a legal person forming part of a corporate group constituting one undertaking for the application of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU, other legal persons belonging to the same undertaking should also be able to use that evidence.
Da se zagotovi spoštovanje omejitev razkritja iz te direktive, bi bilo treba uporabo dokazov, kot so navedeni v uvodnih izjavah 24 in 25, ki so pridobljeni izključno z dostopom do spisa organa, pristojnega za konkurenco, omejiti na podlagi istih okoliščin.
However, the use of evidence obtained through access to the file of a competition authority should not unduly detract from the effective enforcement of competition law by a competition authority.
Omejitve bi morale bodisi veljati za nedopustne v odškodninskih tožbah ali biti drugače zaščitene z veljavnimi nacionalnimi pravili, da se zagotovi poln učinek omejitev razkritja teh vrst dokazov.
In order to ensure that the limitations on disclosure laid down in this Directive are not undermined, the use of evidence of the types referred to in recitals 24 and 25 which is obtained solely through access to the file of a competition authority should be limited under the same circumstances.
Poleg tega dokazi, pridobljeni od organa, pristojnega za konkurenco, ne bi smeli postati predmet pravnega prometa.
The limitation should take the form of inadmissibility in actions for damages or the form of any other protection under applicable national rules capable of ensuring the full effect of the limits on the disclosure of those types of evidence.
Možnost uporabe dokazov, ki so bili pridobljeni izključno z dostopom do spisa organa, pristojnega za konkurenco, bi zato morala biti omejena na fizično ali pravno osebo, ki ji je bil prvotno odobren dostop, in na njene pravne naslednike.
Moreover, evidence obtained from a competition authority should not become an object of trade.
Vendar pa ta omejitev izogibanja izmenjave dokazov nacionalnemu sodišču ne preprečuje, da bi odredilo razkritje takšnih dokazov pod pogoji iz te direktive.
The possibility of using evidence that was obtained solely through access to the file of a competition authority should therefore be limited to the natural or legal person that was originally granted access and to its legal successors.
Vložitev odškodninskega zahtevka ali začetek preiskave organa, pristojnega za konkurenco, predstavlja tveganje, da bi lahko zadevne osebe uničijo ali skrijejo dokaze, ki jih oškodovanec potrebuje za utemeljitev odškodninskega zahtevka.
That limitation to avoid trading of evidence does not, however, prevent a national court from ordering the disclosure of that evidence under the conditions provided for in this Directive.
Da bi preprečili uničenje relevantnih dokazov in zagotovili izvrševanje sodnih odredb o razkritju, bi morala imeti nacionalna sodišča možnost naložiti dovolj odvračilne kazni.
The fact that a claim for damages is initiated, or that an investigation by a competition authority is started, entails a risk that persons concerned may destroy or hide evidence that would be useful in substantiating an injured party's claim for damages.
Kar zadeva stranke v postopku, je lahko posebej učinkovita kazen, s katero se je mogoče izogniti zamudam v postopku, možnost sprejetja odločitve v škodo strank v postopku z odškodninsko tožbo.
To prevent the destruction of relevant evidence and to ensure that court orders as to disclosure are complied with, national courts should be able to impose sufficiently deterrent penalties.
Na voljo bi morale biti tudi kazni za neizpolnjevanje obveznosti varovanja zaupnih podatkov in za zlorabo podatkov, pridobljenih z razkritjem.
In so far as parties to the proceedings are concerned, the risk of adverse inferences being drawn in the proceedings for damages can be a particularly effective penalty, and can help avoid delays.
Podobno bi morale biti kazni na voljo tudi, če se informacije, pridobljene z dostopom do spisa organa, pristojnega za konkurenco, zlorabijo v postopku z odškodninsko tožbo.
Penalties should also be available for non-compliance with obligations to protect confidential information and for the abusive use of information obtained through disclosure.
Da bi lahko Komisija in nacionalni organi, pristojni za konkurenco, zagotovili učinkovito in dosledno uporabo člena 101 in 102 PDEU, je potreben skupen pristop na ravni Unije glede učinka pravnomočnih odločb nacionalnih organov, pristojnih za konkurenco, v zvezi s kršitvami na nadaljnje odškodninske tožbe.
Similarly, penalties should be available if information obtained through access to the file of a competition authority is used abusively in actions for damages.
Takšne odločbe se sprejmejo šele potem, ko je bila Komisija obveščena o predvideni odločbi ali – če odločbe ni – o vseh drugih dokumentih, ki nakazujejo predvideni razvoj postopka v skladu s členom 11(4) Uredbe (ES) št. 1/2003, ter če Komisija z začetkom postopka v skladu s členom 11(6) navedene uredbe ni razbremenila nacionalnih organov, pristojnih za konkurenco.