natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Such circumstances could be, for instance, that the creditor has a particularly strong case but does not have sufficient means to provide security, that the claim relates to maintenance or to the payment of wages or that the size of the claim is such that the Order is unlikely to cause any damage to the debtor, for instance a small business debt.
Take okoliščine bi lahko na primer bile, če ima upnik posebej močne argumente, nima pa zadostnih sredstev za zagotovitev varščine, če se zahtevek nanaša na preživnino ali izplačilo plač ali če je višina zahtevka taka, da dolžnik zaradi naloga verjetno ne bi utrpel nikakršne škode, na primer pri manjšem poslovnem dolgu.
In cases where the creditor has already obtained a judgment, court settlement or authentic instrument, the provision of security should be left to the discretion of the court.
V primerih, kadar je upnik že pridobil sodno odločbo, sodno poravnavo ali javno listino, bi morala biti zagotovitev varščine prepuščena presoji sodišča.
The provision of security may, for instance, be appropriate, except in the abovementioned exceptional circumstances, where the judgment the enforcement of which the Preservation Order intends to secure is not yet enforceable or only provisionally enforceable due to a pending appeal.
Varščina bi bila lahko denimo – razen v navedenih izjemnih okoliščinah – ustrezna, kadar sodna odločba, katere izvršitev se želi zagotoviti z nalogom za zamrznitev, zaradi še nerešene pritožbe še ni izvršljiva ali je le začasno izvršljiva.
Another important element for striking an appropriate balance between the creditor’s and the debtor’s interests should be a rule on the creditor’s liability for any damage caused to the debtor by the Preservation Order.
Drug pomemben dejavnik pri zagotavljanju ustreznega ravnotežja med interesi upnika in dolžnika bi moralo biti pravilo o odgovornosti upnika za vsakršno škodo, ki jo dolžnik utrpi zaradi naloga za zamrznitev.
This Regulation should therefore, as a minimum standard, provide for the liability of the creditor where the damage caused to the debtor by the Preservation Order is due to fault on the creditor’s part.
V tej uredbi bi morala biti zato kot minimalni standard določena odgovornost upnika za škodo, ki jo dolžnik utrpi zaradi naloga za zamrznitev po krivdi upnika.
In this context, the burden of proof should lie with the debtor.
V zvezi s tem dokazno breme nosi dolžnik.
As regards the grounds for liability specified in this Regulation, provision should be made for a harmonised rule establishing a rebuttable presumption of fault on the part of the creditor.
Kar zadeva razloge za odgovornost, navedene v tej uredbi, bi moralo biti določeno harmonizirano pravilo za določitev izpodbojne domneve o krivdi upnika.
Furthermore, the Member States should be able to maintain or introduce in their national law grounds for liability other than those specified in this Regulation.
Države članice bi morale poleg tega imeti možnost, da v nacionalnem pravu ohranijo ali vanj uvedejo razloge za odgovornost, ki so drugačni od tistih, navedenih v tej uredbi.
For such other grounds of liability, the Member States should also be able to maintain or introduce other types of liability, such as strict liability.
Pri takih drugih razlogih za odgovornost bi morale države članice imeti tudi možnost, da ohranijo ali uvedejo druge vrste odgovornosti, denimo objektivno odgovornost.
This Regulation should also lay down a conflict-of-laws rule specifying that the law applicable to the creditor’s liability should be the law of the Member State of enforcement.
Ta uredba bi morala vsebovati tudi kolizijsko pravilo, ki bi določalo, da bi moralo biti pravo, ki se uporablja za odgovornost upnika, pravo države članice izvršitve.
Where there are several Member States of enforcement, the law applicable should be the law of the Member State of enforcement in which the debtor is habitually resident.
Kadar je več držav članic izvršitve, bi moralo biti pravo, ki se uporablja, pravo države članice izvršitve, v kateri ima dolžnik običajno prebivališče.
In a case in which the debtor is not habitually resident in any of the Member States of enforcement, the law applicable should be the law of the Member State of enforcement with which the case has the closest connection.
V zadevi, pri kateri dolžnik nima običajnega prebivališča v nobeni od držav članic izvršitve, bi moralo biti pravo, ki se uporablja, pravo države članice izvršitve, s katero je primer najtesneje povezan.
In determining the closest connection, the size of the amount preserved in the different Member States of enforcement could be one of the factors to be taken into account by the court.
Pri določanju najtesnejše povezave bi bila lahko eden od dejavnikov, ki jih upošteva sodišče, višina zamrznjenega zneska v posameznih državah članicah izvršitve.
In order to overcome existing practical difficulties in obtaining information about the whereabouts of the debtor’s bank account in a cross-border context, this Regulation should set out a mechanism allowing the creditor to request that the information needed to identify the debtor’s account be obtained by the court, before a Preservation Order is issued, from the designated information authority of the Member State in which the creditor believes that the debtor holds an account.
Da bi premostili obstoječe praktične težave pri pridobivanju informacij o tem, kje je v čezmejnem okviru bančni račun dolžnikov, bi moral biti v tej uredbi določen mehanizem, ki upniku omogoča, da zahteva, da informacije, potrebne za identifikacijo dolžnikovega računa, pridobi sodišče pred izdajo naloga za zamrznitev od imenovanega informacijskega organa države članice, za katero upnik domneva, da ima dolžnik v njej račun.
Given the particular nature of such an intervention by public authorities and of such access to private data, access to account information should, as a rule, be given only in cases where the creditor has already obtained an enforceable judgment, court settlement or authentic instrument.
Glede na posebno naravo takega posredovanja javnih organov in takega dostopa do osebnih podatkov bi moral biti dostop do informacij o računih praviloma zagotovljen le v primerih, ko je upnik že pridobil izvršljivo odločbo, sodno poravnavo ali javno listino.
However, by way of exception, it should be possible for the creditor to make a request for account information even though his judgment, court settlement or authentic instrument is not yet enforceable.
Vendar bi moralo biti upniku izjemoma omogočeno, da poda zahtevo za informacije o računih, čeprav njegova sodna odločba, sodna poravnava ali javna listina še ni izvršljiva.
Such a request should be possible where the amount to be preserved is substantial taking into account the relevant circumstances and the court is satisfied, on the basis of the evidence submitted by the creditor, that there is an urgent need for such account information because there is a risk that, without it, the subsequent enforcement of the creditor’s claim against the debtor is likely to be jeopardised and that this could consequently lead to a substantial deterioration of the creditor’s financial situation.
Taka zahteva bi morala biti mogoča, kadar je ob upoštevanju zadevnih okoliščin znesek, ki ga je treba zamrzniti, precejšen, sodišče pa je na podlagi dokazov, ki jih je predložil upnik, prepričano, da so tovrstne informacije o računih nujno potrebne, saj obstaja tveganje, da bi bila brez njih poznejša izvršitev upnikovega zahtevka zoper dolžnika verjetno ogrožena in bi se lahko zato upnikovo finančno stanje bistveno poslabšalo.
To allow that mechanism to work, the Member States should make available in their national law one or more methods for obtaining such information which are effective and efficient and which are not disproportionately costly or time-consuming.
Da bi omogočile delovanje tega mehanizma, bi morale države članice v svojem nacionalnem pravu predvideti enega ali več uspešnih in učinkovitih ter stroškovno in časovno sorazmernih načinov pridobitve tovrstnih informacij.
The mechanism should apply only if all the conditions and requirements for issuing the Preservation Order are met and the creditor has duly substantiated in his request why there are reasons to believe that the debtor holds one or more accounts in a specific Member State, for instance because the debtor works or exercises a professional activity in that Member State or has property there.
Mehanizem bi se uporabil le, če so izpolnjeni vsi pogoji in zahteve za izdajo naloga za zamrznitev ter če je upnik v svoji zahtevi ustrezno utemeljil, zakaj je mogoče sklepati, da ima dolžnik enega ali več računov v določeni državi članici, na primer zato, ker v tej državi članici dela ali opravlja poklicno dejavnost ali ima v njej premoženje.
In order to ensure protection of the personal data of the debtor, the information obtained regarding the identification of the debtor’s bank account or accounts should not be provided to the creditor.
Informacij v zvezi z identifikacijo bančnega računa oziroma računov dolžnika, pridobljenih na podlagi zahteve, zaradi zagotavljanja varstva osebnih podatkov dolžnika ne bi smeli posredovati upniku.
It should be provided only to the requesting court and, exceptionally, to the debtor’s bank if the bank or other entity responsible for enforcing the Order in the Member State of enforcement is not able to identify an account of the debtor on the basis of the information provided in the Order, for instance where there are accounts held with the same bank by several persons having the same name and the same address.
Posredovani bi morali biti le sodišču, ki jih je zahtevalo, in izjemoma banki upnika, če banka ali drug subjekt, odgovoren za izvršitev naloga v državi članici izvršitve, na podlagi informacij iz naloga ne more identificirati dolžnikovega računa, na primer če so pri isti banki odprti računi več oseb z enakim imenom in enakim naslovom.
Where, in such a case, it is indicated in the Order that the number or numbers of the account(s) to be preserved was or were obtained through a request for information, the bank should request that information from the information authority of the Member State of enforcement and should be able to make such a request in an informal and simple manner.
Kadar je v takem primeru v nalogu navedeno, da je bila številka oziroma so bile številke računa oziroma računov, ki jih je treba zamrzniti, pridobljena oziroma pridobljene na podlagi zahteve za informacije, bi morala banka te informacije zahtevati od informacijskega organa države članice izvršitve in bi morala imeti možnost tako zahtevo podati na neuraden in enostaven način.
This Regulation should grant the creditor the right to appeal against a refusal to issue the Preservation Order.
V tej uredbi bi morala biti upniku zagotovljena pravica do pritožbe zoper zavrnitev izdaje naloga za zamrznitev.
That right should be without prejudice to the possibility for the creditor to make a new application for a Preservation Order on the basis of new facts or new evidence.
Ta pravica ne bi smela posegati v možnost upnika, da na podlagi novih dejstev ali novih dokazov poda novo vlogo za izdajo naloga za zamrznitev.
Enforcement structures for preserving bank accounts vary considerably in the Member States.
Izvršitvene strukture za zamrznitev bančnih računov se med državami članicami znatno razlikujejo.
In order to avoid duplication of those structures in the Member States and to respect national procedures to the extent possible, this Regulation should, as regards the enforcement and actual implementation of the Preservation Order, build on the methods and structures in place for the enforcement and implementation of equivalent national orders in the Member State in which the Order is to be enforced.
Da bi preprečili podvajanje teh struktur v državah članicah in kar najbolj spoštovali nacionalne postopke, bi bilo treba v tej uredbi v zvezi z izvršitvijo in dejanskim izvajanjem naloga za zamrznitev nadgraditi obstoječe načine in strukture za izvršitev in izvajanje enakovrednih nacionalnih nalogov v državi članici, v kateri se nalog izvrši.
In order to ensure swift enforcement, this Regulation should provide for transmission of the Order from the Member State of origin to the competent authority of the Member State of enforcement by any appropriate means which ensure that the content of the documents transmitted is true and faithful and easily legible.
Zaradi zagotavljanja hitre izvršitve bi moral biti v tej uredbi določen prenos naloga iz države članice izvora na pristojni organ države članice izvršitve na kakršen koli ustrezen način, s katerim se zagotovi, da je vsebina prenesenih dokumentov resnična in istovetna ter jasno berljiva.
Upon receiving the Preservation Order, the competent authority of the Member State of enforcement should take the necessary steps to have the Order enforced in accordance with its national law, either by transmitting the Order received to the bank or other entity responsible for enforcing such orders in that Member State or, where national law so provides, by otherwise instructing the bank to implement the Order.
Pristojni organ države članice izvršitve bi moral po prejemu naloga za zamrznitev sprejeti ustrezne ukrepe za izvršitev naloga v skladu s svojim nacionalnim pravom, bodisi s prenosom prejetega naloga na banko ali drug subjekt, odgovoren za izvršitev takih nalogov v tej državi članici, bodisi – kadar je tako določeno v nacionalnem pravu – z drugačnimi napotki banki v zvezi z izvajanjem naloga.
Depending on the method available under the law of the Member State of enforcement for equivalent national orders, the Preservation Order should be implemented by blocking the preserved amount in the debtor’s account or, where national law so provides, by transferring that amount to an account dedicated for preservation purposes, which could be an account held by either the competent enforcement authority, the court, the bank with which the debtor holds his account or a bank designated as coordinating entity for the preservation in a given case.
Nalog za zamrznitev bi se moral – odvisno od načina, ki je na voljo na podlagi prava države članice izvršitve za enakovredne nacionalne naloge – izvajati z blokiranjem zamrznjenega zneska na dolžnikovem računu ali, če je tako določeno v nacionalnem pravu, s prenosom tega zneska na račun, namenjen za zamrznitev, ki bi lahko bil račun pri pristojnem izvršitvenem organu, sodišču, banki, pri kateri ima dolžnik račun, ali banki, ki je v določeni zadevi imenovana za usklajevalni subjekt za zamrznitev.
This Regulation should not prevent the payment of fees for the enforcement of the Preservation Order from being requested in advance.
S to uredbo se ne bi smelo preprečiti, da se plačilo pristojbin za izvršitev naloga za zamrznitev lahko zahteva vnaprej.
This issue should be left to the national law of the Member State in which the Order is to be enforced.
To vprašanje bi moralo urejati nacionalno pravo države članice, v kateri se nalog izvrši.
A Preservation Order should have the same rank, if any, as an equivalent national order in the Member State of enforcement.
Nalog za zamrznitev bi moral biti uvrščen na enako prednostno raven, če ta obstaja, kot enakovreden nacionalni nalog v državi članici izvršitve.
If, under national law, certain enforcement measures have priority over preservation measures, the same priority should be given to them in relation to Preservation Orders under this Regulation.
Če imajo na podlagi nacionalnega prava določeni izvršitveni ukrepi prednost pred ukrepi za zamrznitev, bi jim bilo treba enako prednost nameniti v zvezi z nalogom za zamrznitev na podlagi te uredbe.
For the purposes of this Regulation, the in personam orders which exist in some national legal systems should be considered to be equivalent national orders.
Za namene te uredbe bi se morali nalogi in personam, ki obstajajo v nekaterih nacionalnih pravnih sistemih, šteti za enakovredne nacionalne naloge.
This Regulation should provide for the imposition on the bank or other entity responsible for enforcing the Preservation Order in the Member State of enforcement of an obligation to declare whether and, if so, to what extent the Order has led to the preservation of any funds of the debtor, and of an obligation on the creditor to ensure the release of any funds preserved that exceed the amount specified in the Order.
V tej uredbi bi morala biti določena naložitev obveznosti banki ali drugemu subjektu, odgovornemu za izvršitev naloga za zamrznitev v državi članici izvršitve, da navede, ali in v kolikšni meri je nalog privedel do zamrznitve kakršnih koli sredstev dolžnika ter do obveznosti upnika, da zagotovi sprostitev kakršnih koli zamrznjenih sredstev, ki presegajo znesek, naveden v nalogu.
This Regulation should safeguard the debtor’s right to a fair trial and his right to an effective remedy and should therefore, having regard to the ex parte nature of the proceedings for the issue of the Preservation Order, enable him to contest the Order or its enforcement on the grounds provided for in this Regulation immediately after the implementation of the Order.
V tej uredbi bi morali biti zagotovljeni pravica dolžnika do poštenega sojenja in njegova pravica do učinkovitega pravnega sredstva ter bi mu torej ob upoštevanju ex parte narave postopka za izdajo naloga za zamrznitev moralo biti omogočeno, da nalogu ali njegovi izvršitvi na podlagi razlogov iz te uredbe ugovarja takoj po izvedbi naloga.
In this context, this Regulation should require that the Preservation Order, all documents submitted by the creditor to the court in the Member State of origin and the necessary translations be served on the debtor promptly after the implementation of the Order.
V zvezi s tem bi bilo treba v tej uredbi zahtevati, da se nalog za zamrznitev, vsi dokumenti, ki jih upnik predloži sodišču v državi članici izvora, in potrebni prevodi dolžniku vročijo nemudoma po izvedbi naloga.
The court should have discretionary powers to append any further documents on which it based its decision and which the debtor might need for his remedy action, such as verbatim transcripts of any oral hearing.
Sodišče bi moralo imeti diskrecijsko pravico, da priloži vse morebitne dodatne dokumente, na podlagi katerih je sprejelo svojo odločitev in ki bi jih lahko dolžnik potreboval za uveljavljanje pravnih sredstev, kot so dobesedni prepisi morebitnega zaslišanja.
The debtor should be able to request a review of the Preservation Order, in particular if the conditions or requirements set out in this Regulation were not met or if the circumstances that led to the issuing of the Order have changed in such a way that the issuing of the Order would no longer be founded.
Dolžnik bi moral imeti možnost zahtevati ponovni pregled naloga za zamrznitev, zlasti če pogoji ali zahteve, določeni v tej uredbi, niso bili izpolnjeni ali če so se okoliščine, ki so privedle do izdaje naloga, tako spremenile, da izdaja naloga ne bi bila več upravičena.
For instance, a remedy should be available to the debtor if the case did not constitute a cross-border case as defined in this Regulation, if the jurisdiction rules set out in this Regulation were not respected, if the creditor did not initiate proceedings on the substance of the matter within the period of time provided for in this Regulation and the court did not, as a consequence, revoke the Order of its own motion or the Order did not terminate automatically, if the creditor’s claim was not in need of urgent protection in the form of a Preservation Order because there was no risk that the subsequent enforcement of that claim would be impeded or made substantially more difficult, or if the provision of security was not in conformity with the requirements set out in this Regulation.
Dolžniku bi morala biti na primer na voljo pravna sredstva, če ni šlo za čezmejni primer, kot je opredeljen v tej uredbi, če niso bila spoštovana pravila o pristojnosti, določena v tej uredbi, če upnik postopka v glavni stvari ni začel v rokih, določenih v tej uredbi, sodišče pa posledično ni po uradni dolžnosti razveljavilo naloga ali nalog ni bil samodejno preklican, če upnikov zahtevek ni potreboval nujne zaščite v obliki naloga za zamrznitev, ker ni bilo tveganja, da bi bila naknadna izvršitev tega zahtevka ovirana ali precej otežena, ali če zagotovitev varščine ni bila skladna z zahtevami iz te uredbe.
A remedy should also be available to the debtor if the Order and the declaration on the preservation have not been served on him as provided for in this Regulation or if the documents served on him did not meet the language requirements provided for in this Regulation.
Dolžniku bi moralo biti prav tako na voljo pravno sredstvo, če mu nalog in izjava o zamrznitvi nista bila vročena, kot je določeno v tej uredbi, ali če dokumenti, ki so mu bili vročeni, niso izpolnjevali jezikovnih zahtev, določenih v tej uredbi.
However, such a remedy should not be granted if the lack of service or translation is cured within a given period of time.
Tem pravnim sredstvom pa se ne bi smelo ugoditi, če se neizpolnitev obveznosti vročitve ali prevoda odpravi v določenem roku.
In order to cure the lack of service, the creditor should make a request to the body responsible for service in the Member State of origin to have the relevant documents served by registered post on the debtor or, where the debtor has agreed to collect the documents at the court, should provide the necessary translations of the documents to the court.
Da bi se odpravila neopravljena vročitev, bi moral upnik pri organu, ki je v državi članici izvora pristojen za vročitev, podati zahtevo za vročitev ustreznih dokumentov po priporočeni pošti dolžniku ali pa bi moral, če se je dolžnik strinjal, da dokumente dvigne na sodišču, sodišču zagotoviti potrebne prevode dokumentov.
Such a request should not be required if the lack of service has already been cured by other means, for instance if, in accordance with national law, the court initiated the service of its own motion.
Taka zahteva ne bi smela biti potrebna, če je bila neizpolnitev obveznosti vročitve že drugače odpravljena, na primer če je sodišče v skladu z nacionalnim pravom vročitev uvedlo na lastno pobudo.
The question as to who has to provide any translations required under this Regulation and who has to bear the costs for such translations is left to national law.
Vprašanje, kdo mora zagotoviti morebitne prevode, zahtevane na podlagi te uredbe, in kdo mora kriti stroške takih prevodov, ureja nacionalno pravo.
Jurisdiction to grant the remedies against the issue of the Preservation Order should lie with the courts of the Member State in which the Order was issued.
Pristojnost za ugoditev pravnih sredstev zoper nalog za zamrznitev bi morala imeti sodišča države članice, v kateri je bil izdan nalog.
Jurisdiction to grant the remedies against the enforcement of the Order should lie with the courts or, where applicable, with the competent enforcement authorities in the Member State of enforcement.
Pristojnost za ugoditev pravnih sredstev zoper izvršitev naloga bi morala imeti sodišča ali, kadar je ustrezno, pristojni izvršitveni organi države članice izvršitve.
The debtor should have the right to apply for the release of the preserved funds if he provides appropriate alternative security.
Dolžnik bi moral imeti pravico zaprositi za sprostitev zamrznjenih sredstev, če zagotovi ustrezno drugačno varščino.
Such alternative security could be provided in the form of a security deposit or an alternative assurance, such as a bank guarantee or a mortgage.
Taka varščina bi se lahko zagotovila v obliki varnostnega pologa ali drugačnega zagotovila, kot je bančno jamstvo ali hipoteka.
This Regulation should ensure that the preservation of the debtor’s account does not affect amounts which are exempt from seizure under the law of the Member State of enforcement, for example amounts necessary to ensure the livelihood of the debtor and his family.
S to uredbo bi bilo treba zagotoviti, da zamrznitev dolžnikovega računa ne vpliva na zneske, ki so izvzeti iz rubeža na podlagi prava države članice izvršitve, na primer zneske, potrebne za preživljanje dolžnika in njegove družine.