natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Member States are free to define the confiscation of property of equivalent value as subsidiary or alternative to direct confiscation, as appropriate in accordance with national law.
Države članice lahko po potrebi v skladu z nacionalnim pravom odvzem premoženja v vrednosti premoženjske koristi opredelijo kot dopolnilni ali alternativni ukrep neposrednemu odvzemu.
Subject to a final conviction for a criminal offence, it should be possible to confiscate instrumentalities and proceeds of crime, or property the value of which corresponds to such instrumentalities or proceeds.
Moralo bi se omogočiti, da se na podlagi pravnomočne obsodbe za kaznivo dejanje odvzamejo predmeti, ki so bili uporabljeni za kazniva dejanja, in premoženjska korist, pridobljene s kaznivim dejanjem, ali premoženje v vrednosti takšnih predmetov ali premoženjske koristi.
Such final conviction can also result from proceedings in absentia.
Takšna pravnomočna obsodba je lahko izrečena tudi v okviru postopka v nenavzočnosti.
When confiscation on the basis of a final conviction is not possible, it should nevertheless under certain circumstances still be possible to confiscate instrumentalities and proceeds, at least in the cases of illness or absconding of the suspected or accused person.
Če odvzem na podlagi pravnomočne obsodbe ni mogoč, bi moralo biti pod določenimi pogoji še vedno mogoče zaseči predmete, ki so bili uporabljeni za kazniva dejanja in premoženjsko korist, vsaj v primeru bolezni ali bega osumljenca ali obdolženca.
However, in such cases of illness and absconding, the existence of proceedings in absentia in Member States would be sufficient to comply with this obligation.
Vendar pa bi bil v takih primerih bolezni in bega sam obstoj postopka v nenavzočnosti dovolj za izpolnitev te obveznosti držav članic.
When the suspected or accused person has absconded, Member States should take all reasonable steps and may require that the person concerned be summoned to or made aware of the confiscation proceedings.
Če je osumljenec ali obdolženec pobegnil, bi morale države članice sprejeti vse razumne ukrepe in lahko zahtevajo, da mora biti zadevna oseba prisotna v postopku odvzema ali o njem obveščena.
For the purposes of this Directive, illness should be understood to mean the inability of the suspected or accused person to attend the criminal proceedings for an extended period, as a result of which the proceedings cannot continue under normal conditions.
V tej direktivi bi bilo treba bolezen razumeti kot nezmožnost osumljenca ali obdolženca, da se dlje časa ne more udeležiti kazenskega postopka, zato postopek ne more potekati pod normalnimi pogoji.
Suspected or accused persons may be requested to prove illness, for example by a medical certificate, which the court should be able to disregard if it finds it unsatisfactory.
Od osumljencev ali obdolžencev se lahko zahteva, da predložijo dokaz o bolezni, na primer zdravstveno potrdilo, ki bi ga sodišče moralo imeti možnost zavrniti, če meni, da ni zadovoljivo.
The right of that person to be represented in the proceedings by a lawyer should not be affected.
To ne bi smelo vplivati na pravico te osebe, da jo v postopku zastopa odvetnik.
When implementing this Directive in respect of confiscation of property the value of which corresponds to instrumentalities, the relevant provisions could be applicable where, in view of the particular circumstances of the case at hand, such a measure is proportionate, having regard in particular to the value of the instrumentalities concerned.
Pri izvajanju te direktive v zvezi z odvzemom premoženja v vrednosti predmetov, ki so bili uporabljeni za kazniva dejanja, bi se ustrezne določbe lahko uporabljale, kadar je zaradi posebnih okoliščin primera takšen ukrep sorazmeren, ob upoštevanju zlasti vrednosti zadevnih predmetov, ki so bili uporabljeni za kazniva dejanja.
Member States may also take into account whether and to what extent the convicted person is responsible for making the confiscation of the instrumentalities impossible.
Države članice lahko upoštevajo, ali in v kolikšnem obsegu je obsojenec odgovoren za to, da odvzem predmetov, ki so bili uporabljeni za kazniva dejanja, ni mogoč.
When implementing this Directive, Member States may provide that, in exceptional circumstances, confiscation should not be ordered, insofar as it would, in accordance with national law, represent undue hardship for the affected person, on the basis of the circumstances of the respective individual case which should be decisive.
Pri izvajanju te direktive lahko države članice določijo, da v izjemnih okoliščinah ni mogoče odrediti odvzema, če bi v skladu z nacionalnim pravom na podlagi okoliščin posameznega primera, ki bi morale biti odločilne, to pomenilo pretirane težave za prizadeto osebo.
Member States should make a very restricted use of this possibility, and should only be allowed to provide that confiscation is not to be ordered in cases where it would put the person concerned in a situation in which it would be very difficult for him to survive.
Države članice bi morale zelo omejiti uporabo te možnosti in bi jim moralo biti dovoljeno, da določijo, da se odvzem ne odredi, le v primerih, ko bi bila zadevna oseba zaradi odvzema v položaju, v katerem bi zelo težko preživela.
Criminal groups engage in a wide range of criminal activities.
Hudodelske združbe se ukvarjajo z raznovrstnimi kriminalnimi dejavnostmi.
In order to effectively tackle organised criminal activities there may be situations where it is appropriate that a criminal conviction be followed by the confiscation not only of property associated with a specific crime, but also of additional property which the court determines constitutes the proceeds of other crimes.
Za učinkovito preprečevanje dejavnosti organiziranega kriminala se lahko zgodi, da je ustrezno, da kazenski obsodbi sledi odvzem ne le premoženja, povezanega z določenim kaznivim dejanjem, temveč tudi drugega premoženja, za katerega sodišče ugotovi, da je premoženjska korist, pridobljena z drugimi kaznivimi dejanji.
This approach is referred to as extended confiscation.
Ta pristop je razširjen odvzem.
Framework Decision 2005/212/JHA provides for three different sets of minimum requirements that Member States can choose from in order to apply extended confiscation.
V Okvirnem sklepu 2005/212/PNZ so določeni trije različni nizi minimalnih zahtev, ki jih države članice lahko izberejo pri uporabi razširjenega odvzema.
As a result, in the process of transposition of that Framework Decision, Member States have chosen different options which resulted in divergent concepts of extended confiscation in national jurisdictions.
Države članice so tako pri prenosu navedenega okvirnega sklepa izbrale različne možnosti, kar je povzročilo različne koncepte razširjenega odvzema v nacionalnih pravnih redih.
That divergence hampers cross-border cooperation in relation to confiscation cases.
Ta različnost ovira čezmejno sodelovanje v zvezi s primeri odvzema.
It is therefore necessary to further harmonise the provisions on extended confiscation by setting a single minimum standard.
Zato je treba doseči nadaljnjo harmonizacijo določb o razširjenem odvzemu z določitvijo enotnega minimalnega standarda.
When determining whether a criminal offence is liable to give rise to economic benefit, Member States may take into account the modus operandi, for example if a condition of the offence is that it was committed in the context of organised crime or with the intention of generating regular profits from criminal offences.
Pri ugotavljanju, ali je s kaznivim dejanjem mogoče pridobiti gospodarsko korist, lahko države članice upoštevajo modus operandi, na primer ali je pogoj za kaznivo dejanje ta, da je bilo dejanje storjeno v okviru organiziranega kriminala ali z namenom ustvarjanja rednega dobička s kaznivimi dejanji.
However, this should not, in general, prejudice the possibility to resort to extended confiscation.
To pa na splošno ne bi smelo vplivati na možnost uporabe razširjenega odvzema.
Extended confiscation should be possible where a court is satisfied that the property in question is derived from criminal conduct.
Razširjen odvzem bi moral biti mogoč, kadar sodišče meni, da je bilo zadevno premoženje pridobljeno s kaznivim ravnanjem.
This does not mean that it must be established that the property in question is derived from criminal conduct.
To ne pomeni, da je treba ugotoviti, da je bilo zadevno premoženje pridobljeno s kaznivim ravnanjem.
Member States may provide that it could, for example, be sufficient for the court to consider on the balance of probabilities, or to reasonably presume that it is substantially more probable, that the property in question has been obtained from criminal conduct than from other activities.
Države članice lahko določijo, da na primer zadošča, da sodišče po presoji verjetnosti meni ali lahko razumno domneva, da je bistveno bolj verjetno, da je bilo zadevno premoženje pridobljeno s kaznivim ravnanjem kot z drugimi dejavnostmi.
In this context, the court has to consider the specific circumstances of the case, including the facts and available evidence based on which a decision on extended confiscation could be issued.
V tem okviru mora sodišče upoštevati posebne okoliščine primera, vključno z dejstvi in razpoložljivimi dokazi, na podlagi katerih bi bilo mogoče sprejeti odločitev o razširjenem odvzemu.
The fact that the property of the person is disproportionate to his lawful income could be among those facts giving rise to a conclusion of the court that the property derives from criminal conduct.
Eno od dejstev, na podlagi katerih bi sodišče lahko sklepalo, da je bilo premoženje pridobljeno s kaznivim ravnanjem, bi lahko bilo tudi, da je premoženje zadevne osebe nesorazmerno z njenimi zakonitimi dohodki.
Member States could also determine a requirement for a certain period of time during which the property could be deemed to have originated from criminal conduct.
Države članice bi lahko predpisale tudi določeno obdobje, v katerem bi se lahko štelo, da je bilo premoženje pridobljeno s kaznivim ravnanjem.
This Directive lays down minimum rules.
Ta direktiva določa minimalna pravila.
It does not prevent Member States from providing more extensive powers in their national law, including, for example, in relation to their rules on evidence.
Državam članicam ne preprečuje, da v nacionalnem pravu določijo širše pristojnosti, na primer v zvezi s pravili o dokazih.
This Directive applies to criminal offences which fall within the scope of the instruments listed herein.
Ta direktiva se uporablja za kazniva dejanja, ki spadajo v področje uporabe instrumentov, naštetih v tej direktivi.
Within the scope of those instruments, Member States should apply extended confiscation at least to certain criminal offences as defined in this Directive.
Znotraj področja uporabe teh instrumentov bi morale države članice vsaj za določena kazniva dejanja, kakor so opredeljena v tej direktivi, uporabljati razširjen odvzem.
The practice by a suspected or accused person of transferring property to a knowing third party with a view to avoiding confiscation is common and increasingly widespread.
Praksa osumljenca ali obdolženca, da premoženje z namenom izogiba odvzemu prenese na tretjo osebo, ki je s tem seznanjena, je pogosta in vse bolj razširjena.
The current Union legal framework does not contain binding rules on the confiscation of property transferred to third parties.
Sedanji pravni okvir Unije ne vsebuje zavezujočih pravil o odvzemu premoženja, prenesenega na tretje osebe.
It is therefore becoming increasingly necessary to allow for the confiscation of property transferred to or acquired by third parties.
Zato postaja vse bolj nujno, da se dovoli odvzem premoženja, ki je preneseno na tretje osebe ali ki ga pridobijo tretje osebe.
Acquisition by a third party refers to situations where, for example, property has been acquired, directly or indirectly, for example through an intermediary, by the third party from a suspected or accused person, including when the criminal offence has been committed on their behalf or for their benefit, and when an accused person does not have property that can be confiscated.
Pridobitev s strani tretje osebe se nanaša na primere, v katerih je tretja oseba, denimo, pridobila premoženje neposredno ali posredno, na primer prek posrednika, od osumljenca ali obdolženca, vključno s primeri, v katerih je bilo storjeno kaznivo dejanje v njenem imenu ali v njeno korist, in če obdolženec nima premoženja, ki bi se lahko odvzelo.
Such confiscation should be possible at least in cases where third parties knew or ought to have known that the purpose of the transfer or acquisition was to avoid confiscation, on the basis of concrete facts and circumstances, including that the transfer was carried out free of charge or in exchange for an amount significantly lower than the market value.
Takšen odvzem bi moral biti mogoč vsaj v primerih, ko so tretje osebe vedele ali bi lahko vedele, da je namen prenosa ali pridobitve izogib odvzemu, in sicer na podlagi konkretnih dejstev in okoliščin, tudi ko je bil prenos opravljen brezplačno ali v zameno za znesek, ki je bistveno nižji od tržne vrednosti.
The rules on third party confiscation should extend to both natural and legal persons.
Pravila o odvzemu tretji osebi veljajo za fizične in pravne osebe.
In any event the rights of bona fide third parties should not be prejudiced.
To ne bi smelo posegati v pravice tretjih oseb, ki ravnajo v dobri veri.
Member States are free to define third party confiscation as subsidiary or alternative to direct confiscation, as appropriate in accordance with national law.
Države članice lahko v skladu z nacionalnim pravom opredelijo, da je odvzem tretji osebi dopolnilni ali alternativni ukrep neposrednemu odvzemu, kakor je ustrezno.
Confiscation leads to the final deprivation of property.
Odvzem privede do dokončnega odvzema premoženja.
However, preservation of property can be a prerequisite to confiscation and can be of importance for the enforcement of a confiscation order.
Ohranitev premoženja pa je lahko predpogoj za odvzem in je pomembno za izvršitev sklepa o odvzemu.
Property is preserved by means of freezing.
Premoženje se ohrani z začasnim zavarovanjem.
In order to prevent the dissipation of property before a freezing order can be issued, the competent authorities in the Member States should be empowered to take immediate action in order to secure such property.
Da bi preprečili zapravljanje premoženja, preden lahko sodišče izda sklep o začasnem zavarovanju, bi bilo treba pristojne organe v državah članicah pooblastiti, da lahko takoj sprejmejo ukrepe za zaščito takega premoženja.
Since property is often preserved for the purposes of confiscation, freezing and confiscation are closely linked.
Ker se premoženje pogosto ohrani za namene odvzema, sta začasno zavarovanje in odvzem tesno povezana.
In some legal systems freezing for the purposes of confiscation is regarded as a separate procedural measure of a provisional nature, which may be followed by a confiscation order.
V nekaterih pravnih sistemih velja začasno zavarovanje za namene odvzema za ločen postopkovni ukrep začasne narave, ki mu lahko sledi sklep o odvzemu.
Without prejudice to different national legal systems and to Framework Decision 2003/577/JHA, this Directive should approximate some aspects of the national systems of freezing for the purposes of confiscation.
Brez poseganja v različne nacionalne pravne sisteme in Okvirni sklep 2003/577/PNZ bi morala ta direktiva približati nekatere vidike nacionalnih sistemov začasnega zavarovanja za namene odvzema.
Freezing measures are without prejudice to the possibility for a specific property to be considered evidence throughout the proceedings, provided that it would ultimately be made available for effective execution of the confiscation order.
Ukrepi začasnega zavarovanja ne vplivajo na možnost, da se določeno premoženje med postopkom šteje za dokaz, pod pogojem, da bo na koncu na voljo za učinkovito izvršitev sklepa o odvzemu.
In the context of criminal proceedings, property may also be frozen with a view to its possible subsequent restitution or in order to safeguard compensation for the damage caused by a criminal offence.
V okviru kazenskih postopkov je mogoče začasno zavarovati premoženje tudi za namene njegove morebitne poznejše povrnitve ali kot jamstvo za nadomestilo škode, povzročene s kaznivim dejanjem.
Suspected or accused persons often hide property throughout the entire duration of criminal proceedings.
Osumljenci ali obdolženci pogosto skrijejo premoženje za ves čas trajanja kazenskega postopka.
As a result confiscation orders cannot be executed, leaving those subject to confiscation orders to benefit from their property once they have served their sentences.
Sklepa o odvzemu tako ni mogoče izvršiti, zato osebe, katerih premoženje je predmet sklepa o odvzemu, to premoženje koristijo po prestani kazni.
It is therefore necessary to enable the determination of the precise extent of the property to be confiscated even after a final conviction for a criminal offence, in order to permit the full execution of confiscation orders when no property or insufficient property was initially identified and the confiscation order remains unexecuted.
Zaradi tega je treba omogočiti, da bo tudi po pravnomočni obsodbi za kaznivo dejanje mogoče natančno določiti obseg premoženja, da se omogoči izvršitev sklepov o odvzemu v celoti, če na začetku ni bilo odkrito nobeno premoženje ali je bilo odkrito nezadostno premoženje, sklep o odvzemu pa ni bil izvršen.
Given the limitation of the right to property by freezing orders, such provisional measures should not be maintained longer than necessary to preserve the availability of the property with a view to possible subsequent confiscation.
Ker sklepi o začasnem zavarovanju omejujejo lastninsko pravico, takšni začasni ukrepi ne bi smeli veljati dlje, kot je to potrebno za ohranitev razpoložljivosti premoženja zaradi morebitnega poznejšega odvzema.
This may require a review by the court in order to ensure that the purpose of preventing the dissipation of property remains valid.
To bi lahko zahtevalo sodno presojo, da se zagotovi ohranitev njihovega namena, in sicer preprečitev zapravljanja premoženja.
Property frozen with a view to possible subsequent confiscation should be managed adequately in order not to lose its economic value.
S premoženjem, začasno zavarovanim zaradi morebitnega poznejšega odvzema, bi bilo treba ustrezno upravljati, da se ne bi zmanjšala njegova tržna vrednost.
Member States should take the necessary measures, including the possibility of selling or transferring the property to minimise such losses.
Da bi karseda zmanjšali takšne izgube, bi morale države članice sprejeti potrebne ukrepe, vključno z možnostjo prodaje ali prenosa premoženja.
Member States should take relevant measures, for example the establishment of national centralised Asset Management Offices, a set of specialised offices or equivalent mechanisms, in order to effectively manage the assets frozen before confiscation and preserve their value, pending judicial determination.
Sprejeti bi morale ustrezne ukrepe, na primer vzpostavitev nacionalnih centraliziranih uradov za upravljanje sredstev, vrsto specializiranih uradov ali enakovrednih mehanizmov, za učinkovito upravljanje sredstev, začasno zavarovanih pred odvzemom, in ohranjanje njihove vrednosti do izdaje sodne odločbe.
This Directive substantially affects the rights of persons, not only of suspected or accused persons, but also of third parties who are not being prosecuted.
Ta direktiva bistveno vpliva na pravice oseb – ne le osumljencev ali obdolžencev, ampak tudi na pravice tretjih oseb, ki se jih kazensko ne preganja.
It is therefore necessary to provide for specific safeguards and judicial remedies in order to guarantee the preservation of their fundamental rights in the implementation of this Directive.
Zato je treba določiti posebna jamstva in pravna sredstva za zagotavljanje ohranitve njihovih temeljnih pravic pri izvajanju te direktive.
This includes the right to be heard for third parties who claim that they are the owner of the property concerned, or who claim that they have other property rights (‘real rights’, ‘ius in re’), such as the right of usufruct.
To vključuje pravico do zaslišanja za tretje osebe, ki trdijo, da so lastniki zadevnega premoženja ali da imajo druge lastninske pravice (stvarne pravice, ius in re), kot je na primer pravica do uporabe.
The freezing order should be communicated to the affected person as soon as possible after its execution.
Osebo, na katero vpliva, bi bilo treba o sklepu o začasnem zavarovanju obvestiti čim prej po izvršitvi sklepa.
Nevertheless, the competent authorities may postpone communicating such orders to the affected person due to the needs of the investigation.
Pristojni organi pa lahko obvestilo zadevni osebi o takšnih sklepih zaradi potreb preiskave odložijo.
The purpose of communicating the freezing order is, inter alia, to allow the affected person to challenge the order.
Namen obvestila o sklepu o začasnem zavarovanju je med drugim tudi, da se osebi, na katero vpliva, omogoči, da sklep izpodbija.
Therefore, such communication should indicate, at least briefly, the reason or reasons for the order concerned, it being understood that such indication can be very succinct.
V takšnem obvestilu bi zato moral biti naveden, vsaj na kratko, razlog ali razlogi za zadevni sklep, pri čemer se razume, da je lahko takšna navedba zelo zgoščena.
Member States should consider taking measures allowing confiscated property to be used for public interest or social purposes.
Države članice bi morale razmisliti o sprejetju ukrepov, s katerimi se dovoli, da se odvzeto premoženje uporabi za zadeve javnega interesa ali za namene socialne države.
Such measures could, inter alia, comprise earmarking property for law enforcement and crime prevention projects, as well as for other projects of public interest and social utility.
Takšni ukrepi bi lahko med drugim vključevali tudi namenitev premoženja za projekte kazenskega pregona in preprečevanja kriminala, kot tudi druge projekte, ki so v javnem interesu in družbeno koristni.
That obligation to consider taking measures entails a procedural obligation for Member States, such as conducting a legal analysis or discussing the advantages and disadvantages of introducing measures.
Obveznost razmisleka o sprejetju ukrepov za države članice pomeni tudi postopkovno obveznost, kot je opraviti pravno analizo ali obravnavati prednosti in slabosti uvedbe ukrepov.
When managing frozen property and when taking measures concerning the use of confiscated property, Member States should take appropriate action to prevent criminal or illegal infiltration.
Države članice bi morale pri upravljanju začasno zavarovanega premoženja in sprejemanju ukrepov glede uporabe odvzetega premoženja sprejeti ustrezne ukrepe, da bi preprečile vdor kriminalitete ali nezakonitosti.
Reliable data sources on the freezing and confiscation of the proceeds of crime are scarce.
Zanesljivi viri podatkov o začasnem zavarovanju in odvzemu premoženjske koristi, pridobljene s kaznivim dejanjem, so redki.
In order to allow for the evaluation of this Directive, it is necessary to collect a comparable minimum set of appropriate statistical data on freezing and confiscation of property, asset tracing, judicial and asset disposal activities.
Da bi omogočili oceno te direktive, je treba zbrati primerljive minimalne sklope ustreznih statističnih podatkov o začasnem zavarovanju in odvzemu premoženja, sledenju sredstev ter pravosodnih dejavnostih in dejavnostih prodaje sredstev.
Member States should endeavour to collect data for certain statistics at a central level, with a view to sending them to the Commission.
Države članice bi si morale v zvezi z nekaterimi statističnimi podatki prizadevati, da se podatki zbirajo na centralni ravni z namenom, da se pošljejo Komisiji.
This means that the Member States should make reasonable efforts to collect the data concerned.
To pomeni, da bi si morale države članice ustrezno prizadevati za zbiranje zadevnih podatkov.