natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Article 5(5) second subparagraph
Člen 8(1)
Article 11(4)
Člen 5(7)
Article 5(6) point (a)
Člen 8(3) in (4)
Article 9(4) point (a)
Člen 5(8)
Article 5(6) point (b)
Člen 5(9), prvi pododstavek
Article 5(6) point (c)
Člen 15(1) in (2)
Article 9(4) point(b)
Člen 5(9), drugi pododstavek
Article 5(6) point (d)
Člen 15(11)
Article 8(6) and Article 11(5) second subparagraph
Člen 6 (1), prvi pododstavek
Article 5(6) point (e)
Člen 5(1), prvi pododstavek
Article 8(1)
Člen 6 (1), drugi pododstavek
Article 5(7)
Člen 5(2) in (3)
Article 8(3) and (4)
Člen 6 (1), tretji pododstavek
Article 5(8)
Člen 6(2)
Article 5(9) first subparagraph
Člen 6(3) in (4)
Article 15(1) and (2)
Člen 13(1), točka (b)
Article 5(9) second subparagraph
Člen 4(3)
Article 15(11)
Člen 9(2)
Article 6 (1) first subparagraph
Člen 10(2) in (3), točka (a)
Article 5(1) first subparagraph
Člen 9(3)
Article 6 (1) second subparagraph
Člen 16(2)
Article 5(2) and (3)
Člen 25(1)
Article 6 (1) third subparagraph
Člen 10(2) in (3)
Article 6(2)
Člen 25(2)
Article 6(3) and (4)
Člen 11, prvi in drugi pododstavek
Article 13(1) point (b)
Člen 28(1), prvi in drugi pododstavek
Article 4(3)
Člen 11, tretji pododstavek
Article 9(2)
Člen 28(2), prvi pododstavek
Article 10(2) and (3) point (a)
Člen 11, četrti pododstavek
Article 9(3)
Člen 28(3)
Article 16(2)
Člen 13(1)
Article 25(1)
Člen 24(1)
Article 10(2) and (3)
Člen 13(2)
Article 25(2)
Člen 24(2)
Article 11 first and second subparagraphs
Člen 13(3) —
Article 28(1) first and second subparagraphs
Člen 14(1), prvi pododstavek
Article 28(2) first subparagraph
Člen 14(1), drugi pododstavek
Article 11 fourth subparagraph
Člen 29(2)
Article 28(3)
Člen 14(2) in (3)
Article 13(1)
Člen 30, točka (a)
Article 13(2)
Člen 29(3)
Article 24(2)
Priloga I (Seznam dodatnih zdravstvenih opozoril)
Corrigendum to Directive 2014/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and related products and repealing Directive 2001/37/EC
Popravek Direktive 2014/40/EU Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 3. aprila 2014 o približevanju zakonov in drugih predpisov držav članic o proizvodnji, predstavitvi in prodaji tobačnih in povezanih izdelkov in razveljavitvi Direktive 2001/37/ES
(Official Journal of the European Union L 127 of 29 April 2014)
(Uradni list Evropske unije L 127 z dne 29. aprila 2014)
On page 19, point (f) of Article 10(1):
Stran 19, točka (f) člena 10(1):
be reproduced in accordance with the format, layout, design and proportions specified by the Commission pursuant to paragraph 3;’,
so natisnjena v skladu z obliko, razporeditvijo, oblikovanjem in merami, ki jih določi Komisija v skladu z odstavkom 3;“
be reproduced in accordance with the format, layout, design and proportions specified by the Commission pursuant to paragraph 4;’.
so natisnjena v skladu z obliko, razporeditvijo, oblikovanjem in merami, ki jih določi Komisija v skladu z odstavkom 4;“.
Directive 2014/41/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council
Direktiva Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta 2014/41/EU
regarding the European Investigation Order in criminal matters
o evropskem preiskovalnem nalogu v kazenskih zadevah
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 82 (1)(a) thereof,
ob upoštevanju Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije in zlasti člena 82(1)(a) Pogodbe,
Having regard to the initiative of the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Bulgaria, the Republic of Estonia, the Kingdom of Spain, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Slovenia and the Kingdom of Sweden,
ob upoštevanju pobude Kraljevine Belgije, Republike Bolgarije, Republike Estonije, Kraljevine Španije, Republike Avstrije, Republike Slovenije in Kraljevine Švedske,
The European Union has set itself the objective of maintaining and developing an area of freedom, security and justice.
Evropska unija si je zadala cilj ohraniti in razvijati območje svobode, varnosti in pravice.
Pursuant to Article 82(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the Union is to be based on the principle of mutual recognition of judgments and judicial decisions, which is, since the Tampere European Council of 15 and 16 October 1999, commonly referred to as a cornerstone of judicial cooperation in criminal matters within the Union.
V skladu s členom 82(1) Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije (PDEU) temelji pravosodno sodelovanje v kazenskih zadevah v Uniji na načelu vzajemnega priznavanja sodb in sodnih odločb, ki od zasedanja Evropskega sveta v Tampereju 15. in 16. oktobra 1999 običajno predstavlja temelj pravosodnega sodelovanja v kazenskih zadevah v Uniji.
Council Framework Decision 2003/577/JHA [2] addressed the need for immediate mutual recognition of orders to prevent the destruction, transformation, moving, transfer or disposal of evidence.
V Okvirnem sklepu Sveta 2003/577/PNZ [2] je poudarjeno, da je treba zagotoviti takojšnje medsebojno priznavanje sklepov, da se prepreči uničenje, preoblikovanje, premikanje, posredovanje ali odstranitev dokazov.
However, since that instrument is restricted to the freezing phase, a freezing order needs to be accompanied by a separate request for the transfer of the evidence to the State issuing the order (‘the issuing State’) in accordance with the rules applicable to mutual assistance in criminal matters.
Ker pa je ta instrument omejen na fazo zasega, mora biti sklepu o zasegu priloženo ločeno zaprosilo za posredovanje dokaza državi, ki je sklep izdala, (v nadaljnjem besedilu: država izdajateljica) v skladu s pravili, ki se uporabljajo pri medsebojni pomoči v kazenskih zadevah.
This results in a two-step procedure detrimental to its efficiency.
Posledica tega je dvostopenjski postopek, ki ni dovolj učinkovit.
Moreover, this regime coexists with the traditional instruments of cooperation and is therefore seldom used in practice by the competent authorities.
Poleg tega sistema obstajajo tudi tradicionalni instrumenti za sodelovanje, zato ga pristojni organi v praksi redko uporabljajo.
Council Framework Decision 2008/978/JHA [3] concerning the European evidence warrant (EEW) was adopted to apply the principle of mutual recognition for the purpose of obtaining objects, documents and data for use in proceedings in criminal matters.
Okvirni sklep Sveta 2008/978/PNZ [3] v zvezi z evropskim dokaznim nalogom (EDN) je bil sprejet zaradi uporabe načela vzajemnega priznavanja za namene pridobitve predmetov, dokumentov in podatkov za uporabo v kazenskih postopkih.
However, the EEW is only applicable to evidence which already exists and covers therefore a limited spectrum of judicial cooperation in criminal matters with respect to evidence.
Vendar se EDN uporablja samo za dokaze, ki že obstajajo, in torej zajema le omejen razpon pravosodnega sodelovanja v kazenskih zadevah v zvezi z dokazi.
Because of its limited scope, competent authorities have been free to use the new regime or to use mutual legal assistance procedures which, in any case, remain applicable to evidence falling outside of the scope of the EEW.
Ker je področje njegove uporabe omejeno, so pristojni organi lahko uporabljali nov sistem ali postopke medsebojne pravne pomoči, ki se v vsakem primeru še naprej uporabljajo za dokaze, ki niso vključeni v področje uporabe EDN.
Since the adoption of Framework Decisions 2003/577/JHA and 2008/978/JHA, it has become clear that the existing framework for the gathering of evidence is too fragmented and complicated.
Po sprejetju okvirnih sklepov 2003/577/PNZ in 2008/978/PNZ je postalo jasno, da je obstoječi okvir za zbiranje dokazov preveč razdrobljen in zapleten.
A new approach is therefore necessary.
Zato je potreben nov pristop.
In the Stockholm Programme adopted by the European Council of 10-11 December 2009, the European Council considered that the setting up of a comprehensive system for obtaining evidence in cases with a cross-border dimension, based on the principle of mutual recognition, should be further pursued.
V stockholmskem programu, ki ga je Evropski svet sprejel na zasedanju 10. do 11. decembra 2009, je Evropski svet menil, da bi bilo treba nadaljevati vzpostavljanje celovitega sistema za pridobivanje dokazov v čezmejnih primerih na podlagi načela vzajemnega priznavanja.
The European Council indicated that the existing instruments in this area constituted a fragmentary regime and that a new approach was needed, based on the principle of mutual recognition, but also taking into account the flexibility of the traditional system of mutual legal assistance.
Evropski svet je poudaril, da so obstoječi instrumenti na tem področju razdrobljeni in da je zato potreben nov pristop, ki bo temeljil na načelu vzajemnega priznavanja in hkrati upošteval prožnost tradicionalnega sistema medsebojne pravne pomoči.
The European Council therefore called for a comprehensive system to replace all the existing instruments in this area, including Framework Decision 2008/978/JHA, covering as far as possible all types of evidence, containing time-limits for enforcement and limiting as far as possible the grounds for refusal.
Zato je Evropski svet pozval, naj se vzpostavi celovit sistem, ki bo nadomestil vse obstoječe instrumente na tem področju, vključno z Okvirnim sklepom 2008/978/PNZ, ki bo v največji možni meri zajemal vse vrste dokazov ter vključeval roke za izvršitev in čim bolj omejil razloge za zavrnitev.
This new approach is based on a single instrument called the European Investigation Order (EIO).
Ta novi pristop temelji na enotnem instrumentu, imenovanem evropski preiskovalni nalog (EPN).
An EIO is to be issued for the purpose of having one or several specific investigative measure(s) carried out in the State executing the EIO (‘the executing State’) with a view to gathering evidence.
EPN naj bi se izdajal za izvršitev enega ali več posebnih preiskovalnih ukrepov v državi, ki izvrši EPN (v nadaljnjem besedilu: država izvršiteljica), da bi se zbrali dokazi.
This includes the obtaining of evidence that is already in the possession of the executing authority.
To vključuje tudi pridobivanje dokazov, ki jih izvršitveni organ že ima.
The EIO should have a horizontal scope and therefore should apply to all investigative measures aimed at gathering evidence.
Področje uporabe EPN bi moralo biti horizontalno in bi se torej moralo uporabljati za vse preiskovalne ukrepe, namenjene zbiranju dokazov.
However, the setting up of a joint investigation team and the gathering of evidence within such a team require specific rules which are better dealt with separately.
Vendar so za ustanovitev skupne preiskovalne skupine in zbiranje dokazov v okviru te skupine potrebna posebna pravila, ki jih je primerneje obravnavati ločeno.
Without prejudice to the application of this Directive, existing instruments should therefore continue to apply to this type of investigative measure.
Brez poseganja v uporabo te direktive bi bilo treba torej za to vrsto preiskovalnega ukrepa še naprej uporabljati obstoječe instrumente.
This Directive should not apply to cross-border surveillance as referred to in the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement [4].
Ta direktiva se ne bi smela uporabljati za čezmejno opazovanje iz Konvencije o izvajanju schengenskega sporazuma [4].
The EIO should focus on the investigative measure to be carried out.
EPN bi moral biti usmerjen na preiskovalni ukrep, ki ga je treba izvesti.
The issuing authority is best placed to decide, on the basis of its knowledge of the details of the investigation concerned, which investigative measure is to be used.
Za odločanje o tem, kateri preiskovalni ukrep je treba uporabiti, je najprimernejši odreditveni organ, ki pozna podrobnosti zadevne preiskave.
However, the executing authority should, wherever possible, use another type of investigative measure if the indicated measure does not exist under its national law or would not be available in a similar domestic case.
Vendar pa bi moral izvršitveni organ, kadar koli je to mogoče, uporabiti drugo vrsto preiskovalnega ukrepa, če predvideni ukrep ne obstaja v njegovem nacionalnem pravu ali ne bi bil na razpolago v podobnem notranjem primeru.
Availability should refer to occasions where the indicated investigative measure exists under the law of the executing State but is only lawfully available in certain situations, for example where the investigative measure can only be carried out for offences of a certain degree of seriousness, against persons for whom there is already a certain level of suspicion or with the consent of the person concerned.
Razpoložljivost bi se morala nanašati na primere, ko predvideni preiskovalni ukrep sicer obstaja v pravu države izvršiteljice, vendar se lahko zakonito izvede samo v določenih situacijah, na primer za dovolj huda kazniva dejanja, proti osebam, zoper katere že obstaja določena stopnja suma, ali s privolitvijo zadevne osebe.
The executing authority may also have recourse to another type of investigative measure where it would achieve the same result as the investigative measure indicated in the EIO by means implying less interference with the fundamental rights of the person concerned.
Izvršitveni organ bi lahko uporabil tudi drugo vrsto preiskovalnega ukrepa, če bi bilo mogoče z njim doseči enak rezultat kot s preiskovalnim ukrepom, predlaganim v EPN, vendar s sredstvi, ki predstavljajo manjši poseg v temeljne pravice zadevne osebe.
The EIO should be chosen where the execution of an investigative measure seems proportionate, adequate and applicable to the case in hand.
EPN bi bilo treba izbrati, če se zdi, da je v danem primeru izvršitev preiskovalnega ukrepa sorazmerna, ustrezna in uporabna.
The issuing authority should therefore ascertain whether the evidence sought is necessary and proportionate for the purpose of the proceedings, whether the investigative measure chosen is necessary and proportionate for the gathering of the evidence concerned, and whether, by means of issuing the EIO, another Member State should be involved in the gathering of that evidence.
Odreditveni organ bi torej moral ugotoviti ali so želeni dokazi nujni in sorazmerni glede na namen postopka, ali je izbrani preiskovalni ukrep nujen in sorazmeren za zbiranje zadevnih dokazov in ali bi bilo treba pri izdaji EPN v zbiranje teh dokazov vključiti drugo državo članico.
The same assessment should be carried out in the validation procedure, where the validation of an EIO is required under this Directive.
Isto presojo bi bilo treba izvesti v postopku potrditve, če je treba EPN potrditi v skladu s to direktivo.
The execution of an EIO should not be refused on grounds other than those stated in this Directive.
Izvršitev EPN bi bilo možno zavrniti samo na podlagi razlogov, ki so navedeni v tej direktivi.
However the executing authority should be entitled to opt for a less intrusive investigative measure than the one indicated in an EIO if it makes it possible to achieve similar results.
Vendar pa bi se lahko izvršitveni organ odločil za manj intruziven ukrep, kot je ukrep, naveden v zadevnem EPN, če lahko z njim doseže podobne rezultate.
When issuing an EIO the issuing authority should pay particular attention to ensuring full respect for the rights as enshrined in Article 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the Charter).
Odreditveni organ bi moral pri izdaji EPN posebno pozornost nameniti zagotavljanju doslednega spoštovanja pravic, določenih v členu 48 Listine Evropske unije o temeljnih pravicah (v nadaljnjem besedilu: Listina).
The presumption of innocence and the rights of defence in criminal proceedings are a cornerstone of the fundamental rights recognised in the Charter within the area of criminal justice.
Domneva nedolžnosti in pravica do obrambe v kazenskih postopkih sta ključna elementa temeljnih pravic, ki jih Listina priznava na področju kazenskega pravosodja.
Any limitation of such rights by an investigative measure ordered in accordance with this Directive should fully conform to the requirements established in Article 52 of the Charter with regard to the necessity, proportionality and objectives that it should pursue, in particular the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
Kakršno koli omejevanje teh pravic s preiskovalnim ukrepom, odrejenim v skladu s to direktivo, bi moralo biti v celoti skladno z zahtevami iz člena 52 Listine glede nujnosti, sorazmernosti in ciljev splošnega interesa, ki bi jih moral nalog zasledovati, še posebej zaradi zaščite pravic in svoboščin drugih.
With a view to ensuring the transmission of the EIO to the competent authority of the executing State, the issuing authority may make use of any possible or relevant means of transmission, for example the secure telecommunications system of the European Judicial Network, Eurojust, or other channels used by judicial or law enforcement authorities.
Da zagotovi posredovanje EPN pristojnemu organu države izvršiteljice, lahko odreditveni organ uporabi vsa možna oziroma ustrezna sredstva, med drugim tudi varni telekomunikacijski sistem Evropske pravosodne mreže, Eurojust ali druge kanale, ki jih uporabljajo pravosodni organi ali organi kazenskega pregona.
When making a declaration concerning the language regime, Member States are encouraged to include at least one language which is commonly used in the Union other than their official language(s).
Države članice se spodbuja, da ob podaji izjave o jezikovni ureditvi, poleg svojega(-ih) uradnega(-ih) jezika(-ov) vanjo vključijo vsaj še en jezik, ki se običajno uporablja v Uniji.
This Directive should be implemented taking into account Directives 2010/64/EU [5], 2012/13/EU [6], and 2013/48/EU [7] of the European Parliament and of the Council, which concern procedural rights in criminal proceedings.
To direktivo bi bilo treba izvajati ob upoštevanju Direktive 2010/64/EU Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta [5], Direktive 2012/13/EU Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta [6] in Direktive 2013/48/EU Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta [7], ki obravnavajo postopkovne pravice v kazenskem postopku.
Non-coercive measures could be, for example, such measures that do not infringe the right to privacy or the right to property, depending on national law.
Možni neomejitveni preiskovalni ukrepi bi lahko na primer bili ukrepi, ki ne kršijo pravice do zasebnosti ali do lastnine, glede na nacionalno pravo.
The principle of ne bis in idem is a fundamental principle of law in the Union, as recognised by the Charter and developed by the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union.
Načelo ne bis in idem, kot ga priznava Listina in kot se oblikuje s sodno prakso Sodišča Evropske unije, je eno od temeljnih pravnih načel v Uniji.
Therefore the executing authority should be entitled to refuse the execution of an EIO if its execution would be contrary to that principle.
Zato bi izvršitvenemu organu moralo biti omogočeno, da zavrne izvršitev EPN, ki bi bila v nasprotju s tem načelom.
Given the preliminary nature of the proceedings underlying an EIO, its execution should not be subject to refusal where it is aimed to establish whether a possible conflict with the ne bis in idem principle exists, or where the issuing authority has provided assurances that the evidence transferred as a result of the execution of the EIO would not be used to prosecute or impose a sanction on a person whose case has been finally disposed of in another Member State for the same facts.
Glede na predhodni značaj postopkov, na katerih temelji EPN, njegova izvršitev ne bi smela biti zavrnjena, kadar je njegov cilj ugotoviti, ali obstaja morebitno nasprotje z načelom ne bis in idem, ali če je odreditveni organ zagotovil, da se dokazi, posredovani zaradi izvršitve EPN, ne bodo uporabili za pregon ali izreka sankcije osebi, v zvezi s katero je bil postopek zaključen v drugi državi članici na podlagi istih dejstev.
As in other mutual recognition instruments, this Directive does not have the effect of modifying the obligation to respect the fundamental rights and fundamental legal principles as enshrined in Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and the Charter.
Tako kot pri drugih instrumentih vzajemnega priznavanja ta direktiva ne spreminja obveznosti spoštovanja temeljnih pravic in temeljnih pravnih načel, določenih v členu 6 Pogodbe o Evropski uniji (PEU) in v Listini.
In order to make this clear, a specific provision is inserted in the text.
Da je to jasno razvidno, je v besedilo vstavljena posebna določba.
The creation of an area of freedom, security and justice within the Union is based on mutual confidence and a presumption of compliance by other Member States with Union law and, in particular, with fundamental rights.
Vzpostavitev območja svobode, varnosti in pravice v Uniji temelji na medsebojnem zaupanju in domnevi, da druge države članice spoštujejo pravo Unije in zlasti temeljne pravice.
However, that presumption is rebuttable.
Kljub vsemu se lahko to domnevo izpodbija.
Consequently, if there are substantial grounds for believing that the execution of an investigative measure indicated in the EIO would result in a breach of a fundamental right of the person concerned and that the executing State would disregard its obligations concerning the protection of fundamental rights recognised in the Charter, the execution of the EIO should be refused.
Zato bi bilo treba izvršitev EPN zavrniti, če je mogoče utemeljeno domnevati, da bodo z izvršitvijo preiskovalnega ukrepa, predlaganega v EPN, kršene temeljne pravice zadevnega posameznika in da država izvršiteljica ne bo upoštevala svojih obveznosti glede varstva temeljnih pravic, priznanih v Listini.
It should be possible to refuse an EIO where its recognition or execution in the executing State would involve a breach of an immunity or privilege in that State.
Zagotoviti bi bilo treba možnost zavrnitve EPN v primeru, če bi njegovo priznanje ali izvršitev v državi izvršiteljici pomenilo kršitev imunitete ali privilegija v tej državi.
There is no common definition of what constitutes an immunity or privilege in Union law,; the precise definition of these terms is therefore left to national law, which may include protections which apply to medical and legal professions, but should not be interpreted in a way to counter the obligation to abolish certain grounds for refusal as set out in the Protocol to the Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between the Member States of the European Union [8].
V pravu Unije ni enotne opredelitve imunitete ali privilegija, zato je natančna opredelitev teh izrazov prepuščena nacionalnemu pravu, ki lahko pod te izraze zajame zaščita, ki se uporablja za zdravniške in pravne poklice, ki pa jih ne bi smeli razlagati v nasprotju z obveznostjo o ukinitvi nekaterih razlogov za zavrnitev iz Protokola h Konvenciji o medsebojni pomoči v kazenskih zadevah med državami članicami Evropske unije [8].
This may also include, even though they are not necessarily considered as privilege or immunity, rules relating to freedom of the press and freedom of expression in other media.
Takšni razlogi lahko vključujejo tudi predpise v zvezi s svobodo tiska in izražanja v drugih medijih, čeprav se ti nujno ne obravnavajo kot privilegiji ali imunitete.
Time limits are necessary to ensure quick, effective and consistent cooperation between the Member States in criminal matters.
Da bi zagotovili hitro, učinkovito in dosledno sodelovanje v kazenskih zadevah med državami članicami, so potrebni določeni roki.
The decision on the recognition or execution, as well as the actual execution of the investigative measure, should be carried out with the same celerity and priority as for a similar domestic case.
Odločitev o priznanju ali izvršitvi in dejansko izvršitev preiskovalnega ukrepa bi bilo treba izvesti enako hitro in enako prednostno kot v podobnem notranjem primeru.
Time limits should be provided to ensure a decision or execution within reasonable time or to meet procedural constraints in the issuing State.
Roke bi bilo treba določiti, da se zagotovi, da se odločitev sprejme ali izvršitev izvede v razumnem roku, ali da se upoštevajo postopkovne omejitve države izdajateljice.