natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The exercise of the right to remain silent or the right not to incriminate oneself should not be used against a suspect or accused person and should not, in itself, be considered to be evidence that the person concerned has committed the criminal offence concerned.
Uveljavljanje pravice posameznika, da ne izpove zoper sebe, javnim organom ne bi smelo preprečiti zbiranja dokazov, ki se lahko zakonito pridobijo od osumljene ali obdolžene osebe z uporabo zakonitih prisilnih ukrepov in ki obstajajo neodvisno od volje osumljene ali obdolžene osebe, kot je na primer dokazno gradivo, pridobljeno na podlagi naloga, dokazno gradivo, za katero obstaja pravna obveznost hrambe in predložitve na zahtevo, vzorci izdihanega zraka, krvi in urina ter telesno tkivo za testiranje DNK.
This should be without prejudice to national rules concerning the assessment of evidence by courts or judges, provided that the rights of the defence are respected.
Pravica do molka in pravica posameznika, da ne izpove zoper sebe, državam članicam ne bi smeli preprečevati, da za manjše kršitve, kot so manjši cestnoprometni prekrški, odločijo, da lahko postopek ali nekatere njegove faze potekajo v pisni obliki ali brez zaslišanja osumljene ali obdolžene osebe s strani pristojnih organov v zvezi z zadevno kršitvijo, pod pogojem, da je to skladno s pravico do poštenega sojenja.
The exercise of the right not to incriminate oneself should not prevent the competent authorities from gathering evidence which may be lawfully obtained from the suspect or accused person through the use of legal powers of compulsion and which has an existence independent of the will of the suspect or accused person, such as material acquired pursuant to a warrant, material in respect of which there is a legal obligation of retention and production upon request, breath, blood or urine samples and bodily tissue for the purpose of DNA testing.
Države članice bi morale preučiti možnost, da bi v primerih, ko so osumljene ali obdolžene osebe obveščene o svojih pravicah na podlagi člena 3 Direktive 2012/13/EU, zagotovile, da so te osebe obveščene tudi o pravici, da ne izpovedo zoper sebe, kakor se uporablja v nacionalnem pravu v skladu s to direktivo.
The right to remain silent and the right not to incriminate oneself should not preclude Member States from deciding that, with regard to minor offences, such as minor road traffic offences, the conduct of the proceedings, or certain stages thereof, may take place in writing or without questioning of the suspect or accused person by the competent authorities in relation to the offence concerned, provided that this complies with the right to a fair trial.
Države članice bi morale preučiti možnost, da bi v primerih, ko osumljene ali obdolžene osebe prejmejo pisno obvestilo o pravicah na podlagi člena 4 Direktive 2012/13/EU, zagotovile, da to obvestilo vsebuje tudi informacije o pravici posameznika, da ne izpove zoper sebe, kakor se uporablja v nacionalnem pravu v skladu s to direktivo.
Member States should consider ensuring that, where suspects or accused persons are provided with information about rights pursuant to Article 3 of Directive 2012/13/EU, they are also provided with information concerning the right not to incriminate oneself, as it applies under national law in accordance with this Directive.
Pravica do poštenega sojenja je eno od osnovnih načel v demokratični družbi.
Member States should consider ensuring that, where suspects or accused persons are provided with a Letter of Rights pursuant to Article 4 of Directive 2012/13/EU, such a Letter also contains information concerning the right not to incriminate oneself as it applies under national law in accordance with this Directive.
Pravica osumljenih ali obdolženih oseb, da so navzoče na sojenju, temelji na navedeni pravici in bi morala biti zagotovljena po vsej Uniji.
The right to a fair trial is one of the basic principles in a democratic society.
Če osumljene ali obdolžene osebe iz razlogov, ki niso pod njihovim nadzorom, ne morejo biti navzoče na sojenju, bi morale imeti možnost, da zahtevajo nov datum za sojenje v časovnem okviru, ki ga določa nacionalno pravo.
The right of suspects and accused persons to be present at the trial is based on that right and should be ensured throughout the Union.
Pravica osumljenih ali obdolženih oseb, da so navzoče na sojenju, ni absolutna.
If, for reasons beyond their control, suspects or accused persons are unable to be present at the trial, they should have the possibility to request a new date for the trial within the time frame provided for in national law.
Osumljene ali obdolžene osebe bi morale imeti možnost, da se pod nekaterimi pogoji izrecno ali molče, vendar nedvoumno, odpovejo tej pravici.
The right of suspects and accused persons to be present at the trial is not absolute.
V nekaterih okoliščinah bi moralo biti mogoče, da se odločba, s katero se ugotovi, ali je osumljena ali obdolžena oseba kriva ali nedolžna, izda, tudi če zadevna oseba ni navzoča na sojenju.
Under certain conditions, suspects and accused persons should be able, expressly or tacitly, but unequivocally, to waive that right.
Tako je lahko v primeru, ko je bila osumljena ali obdolžena oseba pravočasno obveščena o sojenju in posledicah izostanka, vendar se sojenja kljub temu ne udeleži.
Under certain circumstances it should be possible for a decision on the guilt or innocence of a suspect or accused person to be handed down even if the person concerned is not present at the trial.
Obvestitev osumljene ali obdolžene osebe o sojenju bi morala pomeniti, da se to osebo bodisi vabi osebno bodisi se ji kako drugače zagotovi uradne informacije o datumu in kraju sojenja, in sicer na način, ki omogoča, da oseba ve za sojenje.
This might be the case where the suspect or accused person has been informed, in due time, of the trial and of the consequences of non-appearance and does not, nevertheless, appear.
Obvestitev osumljene ali obdolžene osebe o posledicah izostanka bi morala zlasti pomeniti, da se to osebo obvesti, da se lahko odločba izda, tudi če se sojenja ne udeleži.
Informing a suspect or accused person of the trial should be understood to mean summoning him or her in person or, by other means, providing that person with official information about the date and place of the trial in a manner that enables him or her to become aware of the trial.
Moralo bi biti mogoče, da sojenje, na podlagi katerega se lahko izda odločba, s katero se ugotovi, ali je oseba kriva ali nedolžna, poteka brez navzočnosti osumljene ali obdolžene osebe, če je bila ta oseba obveščena o sojenju in je pooblastila odvetnika, ki ga je imenovala sama ali pa država, da jo zastopa na sojenju, in ki jo je zastopal.
Informing the suspect or accused person of the consequences of non-appearance should, in particular, be understood to mean informing that person that a decision might be handed down if he or she does not appear at the trial.
Pri ugotavljanju, ali je bil način obveščanja ustrezen za zagotovitev, da je oseba vedela za sojenje, bi bilo treba posebno pozornost po potrebi nameniti tudi prizadevanju javnih organov, da obvestijo zadevno osebo, ter prizadevanju zadevne osebe, da prejme informacije, ki so nanjo naslovljene.
It should also be possible to hold a trial which may result in a decision on guilt or innocence in the absence of a suspect or accused person where that person has been informed of the trial and has given a mandate to a lawyer who was appointed by that person or by the State to represent him or her at the trial and who represented the suspect or accused person.
Če države članice omogočajo sojenje brez navzočnosti osumljenih ali obdolženih oseb, vendar pogoji za izdajo odločbe brez navzočnosti, kar zadeva določeno osumljeno ali obdolženo osebo, niso izpolnjeni, ker osumljene ali obdolžene osebe kljub razumnemu prizadevanju ni bilo mogoče najti, na primer zaradi bega te osebe, bi kljub temu moralo biti mogoče, da se odločba izda brez navzočnosti osumljene ali obdolžene osebe ter da se taka odločba izvrši.
When considering whether the way in which the information is provided is sufficient to ensure the person's awareness of the trial, particular attention should, where appropriate, also be paid to the diligence exercised by public authorities in order to inform the person concerned and to the diligence exercised by the person concerned in order to receive information addressed to him or her.
Države članice bi morale v tem primeru zagotoviti, da so osumljene ali obdolžene osebe, ko so obveščene o odločbi, zlasti v trenutku, ko so prijete, obveščene tudi o možnosti, da izpodbijajo to odločbo in da imajo pravico do novega sojenja ali drugega pravnega sredstva.
Where Member States provide for the possibility of holding trials in the absence of suspects or accused persons but the conditions for taking a decision in the absence of a particular suspect or accused person are not met because the suspect or accused person could not be located despite reasonable efforts having been made, for example because the person has fled or absconded, it should nevertheless be possible to take a decision in the absence of the suspect or accused person and to enforce that decision.
Take informacije bi bilo treba zagotoviti pisno.
In that case, Member States should ensure that when suspects or accused persons are informed of the decision, in particular when they are apprehended, they should also be informed of the possibility to challenge the decision and of the right to a new trial or to another legal remedy.
Informacije se lahko zagotovijo tudi ustno, pod pogojem, da se taka zagotovitev informacij evidentira po postopku za evidentiranje v skladu z nacionalnim pravom.
Such information should be provided in writing.
Pristojnim organom v državah članicah bi moralo biti dovoljeno, da osumljeno ali obdolženo osebo začasno izključijo iz sojenja, če je to v interesu zagotavljanja pravilnega poteka kazenskega postopka.
The information may also be provided orally on condition that the fact that the information has been provided is noted in accordance with the recording procedure under national law.
Tako je lahko med drugim v primeru, ko osumljena ali obdolžena oseba moti narok in jo je treba na podlagi odredbe sodnika pospremiti iz dvorane ali pa ko se zdi, da bi navzočnost osumljene ali obdolžene osebe lahko vplivala na pravilno zaslišanje priče.
Competent authorities in the Member States should be allowed to exclude a suspect or accused person temporarily from the trial where this is in the interests of securing the proper conduct of the criminal proceedings.
Pravica biti navzoč na sojenju se lahko uveljavlja le, če sojenje vključuje enega ali več narokov.
This could, for example, be the case where a suspect or accused person disturbs the hearing and must be escorted out of the court room on order of the judge, or where it appears that the presence of a suspect or accused person prevents the proper hearing of a witness.
To pomeni, da se pravica biti navzoč na sojenju ne more uporabljati, če nacionalna procesna pravila ne predvidevajo naroka.
The right to be present at the trial can be exercised only if one or more hearings are held.
Takšna nacionalna pravila bi morala biti skladna z Listino in EKČP, kakor jo razlagata Sodišče in Evropsko sodišče za človekove pravice, zlasti kar zadeva pravico do poštenega sojenja.
This means that the right to be present at the trial cannot apply if the relevant national rules of procedure do not provide for a hearing.
Tako je med drugim v primeru, če postopek poteka na poenostavljen način, in sicer v celoti ali delno kot pisni postopek ali postopek, v katerem ni predviden narok.
Such national rules should comply with the Charter and with the ECHR, as interpreted by the Court of Justice and by the European Court of Human Rights, in particular with regard to the right to a fair trial.
Države članice bi morale zagotoviti, da pri izvajanju te direktive, zlasti kar zadeva pravico biti navzoč na sojenju in pravico do novega sojenja, upoštevajo posebne potrebe ranljivih oseb.
This is the case, for example, if the proceedings are conducted in a simplified manner following, solely or in part, a written procedure or a procedure in which no hearing is provided for.
V skladu s Priporočilom Komisije z dne 27. novembra 2013 o procesnih jamstvih za ranljive osebe, ki so osumljene ali obdolžene v kazenskem postopku [8] bi bilo treba kot ranljive osumljene ali obdolžene osebe razumeti vse osumljene ali obdolžene osebe, ki ne morejo razumeti kazenskega postopka in v njem učinkovito sodelovati zaradi svoje starosti, duševnega ali telesnega stanja ali kakršne koli invalidnosti.
Member States should ensure that in the implementation of this Directive, in particular with regard to the right to be present at the trial and the right to a new trial, the particular needs of vulnerable persons are taken into account.
Otroci so ranljivi in bi jim bilo treba zagotoviti posebno stopnjo varstva.
According to the Commission Recommendation of 27 November 2013 on procedural safeguards for vulnerable persons suspected or accused in criminal proceedings [8], vulnerable suspects or accused persons should be understood to mean all suspects or accused persons who are not able to understand or effectively participate in criminal proceedings due to their age, their mental or physical condition or any disabilities they may have.
Zato bi bilo treba v zvezi s pravicami, določenimi v tej direktivi, vzpostaviti posebna procesna jamstva.
Children are vulnerable and should be given a specific degree of protection.
Načelo učinkovitosti prava EU zahteva, da države članice uvedejo ustrezna in učinkovita pravna sredstva v primeru kršitve pravice, ki jo posameznikom podeljuje pravo Unije.
Therefore, in respect of some of the rights provided for in this Directive, specific procedural safeguards should be established.
Učinkovito pravno sredstvo, ki je na voljo v primeru kršitve pravic, določenih s to direktivo, bi moralo, kolikor je mogoče, učinkovati tako, da se osumljena ali obdolžena oseba vrne v položaj, v katerem bi bila, če do kršitve ne bi prišlo, z namenom varstva pravice do poštenega sojenja in pravic obrambe.
The principle of effectiveness of Union law requires that Member States put in place adequate and effective remedies in the event of a breach of a right conferred upon individuals by Union law.
Sodišča in sodniki bi morali pri presojanju izjav osumljenih ali obdolženih oseb ali dokazov, pridobljenih s kršenjem njihove pravice do molka ali pravice, da ne izpovedo zoper sebe, spoštovati pravice obrambe in poštenost postopka.
An effective remedy, which is available in the event of a breach of any of the rights laid down in this Directive, should, as far as possible, have the effect of placing the suspects or accused persons in the same position in which they would have found themselves had the breach not occurred, with a view to protecting the right to a fair trial and the rights of the defence.
V tem okviru bi bilo treba upoštevati sodno prakso Evropskega sodišča za človekove pravice, v skladu s katero bi upoštevanje izjav, pridobljenih z mučenjem ali drugimi oblikami grdega ravnanja, ki pomenijo kršitev člena 3 EKČP, kot dokazov pri ugotavljanju dejstev v kazenskem postopku pomenilo, da je postopek kot celota nepošten.
When assessing statements made by suspects or accused persons or evidence obtained in breach of the right to remain silent or the right not to incriminate oneself, courts and judges should respect the rights of the defence and the fairness of the proceedings.
V skladu s Konvencijo ZN proti mučenju in drugim krutim, nečloveškim ali poniževalnim kaznim ali ravnanju se nobena izjava, za katero se ugotovi, da je bila dana zaradi mučenja, ne bi smela v nobenem postopku uporabiti kot dokaz, razen v postopku proti osebi, obdolženi mučenja, kot dokaz, da je bila taka izjava dana.
In that context, regard should be had to the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, according to which the admission of statements obtained as a result of torture or of other ill-treatment in breach of Article 3 ECHR as evidence to establish the relevant facts in criminal proceedings would render the proceedings as a whole unfair.
Za spremljanje in ocenjevanje učinkovitosti te direktive bi morale države članice Komisiji poslati razpoložljive podatke v zvezi z izvajanjem pravic iz te direktive.
According to the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, any statement which is established to have been made as a result of torture should not be invoked as evidence in any proceedings, except against a person accused of torture as evidence that the statement was made.
Takšni podatki bi lahko vključevali podatke, ki jih organi preprečevanja, odkrivanja in preiskovanja kaznivih dejanj ter pravosodni organi zabeležijo v zvezi s pravnim sredstvom, ki se uporabi v primeru kršitve katerega koli od vidikov domneve nedolžnosti, ki jih zajema ta direktiva, ali pravice biti navzoč na sojenju.
In order to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of this Directive, Member States should send available data with regard to the implementation of the rights laid down in this Directive to the Commission.
Ta direktiva podpira temeljne pravice in načela, kot so priznani z Listino ter EKČP, vključno s prepovedjo mučenja ter nečloveškega ali ponižujočega ravnanja, pravico do svobode in varnosti, spoštovanjem zasebnega in družinskega življenja, pravico do osebne celovitosti, otrokovimi pravicami, vključenostjo invalidov, pravico do učinkovitega pravnega sredstva in poštenega sojenja, domnevo nedolžnosti in pravicami obrambe.
Such data could include records made by law enforcement and judicial authorities as regards remedies applied in the case of a breach of any of the aspects of the presumption of innocence covered by this Directive or of the right to be present at the trial.
Upoštevati bi bilo treba zlasti člen 6 Pogodbe o Evropski uniji (PEU), v skladu s katerim Unija priznava pravice, svoboščine in načela iz Listine in v skladu s katerim temeljne pravice, kakor jih zagotavlja EKČP in kakor izhajajo iz ustavnega izročila, skupnega državam članicam, predstavljajo splošna načela prava Unije.
This Directive upholds the fundamental rights and principles recognised by the Charter and by the ECHR, including the prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment, the right to liberty and security, respect for private and family life, the right to the integrity of the person, the rights of the child, the integration of persons with disabilities, the right to an effective remedy and the right to a fair trial, the presumption of innocence and the rights of the defence.
Glede na to, da direktiva določa minimalna pravila, bi države članice morale imeti možnost razširiti pravice iz te direktive, da zagotovijo višjo raven varstva.
Regard should be had, in particular, to Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), according to which the Union recognises the rights, freedoms and principles set out in the Charter, and according to which fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the ECHR and as they result from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States, are to constitute general principles of Union law.
Raven varstva, ki jo zagotavljajo države članice, nikoli ne bi smela biti nižja od standardov, ki so določeni v Listini oziroma EKČP, kakor ju razlagata Sodišče in Evropsko sodišče za človekove pravice.
As this Directive establishes minimum rules, Member States should be able to extend the rights laid down in this Directive in order to provide a higher level of protection.
Ker ciljev te direktive, to je določiti skupna minimalna pravila za nekatere vidike domneve nedolžnosti in pravice biti navzoč na sojenju v kazenskem postopku, države članice ne morejo zadovoljivo doseči, temveč se zaradi njihovega obsega in učinkov lažje dosežejo na ravni Unije, lahko Unija sprejme ukrepe v skladu z načelom subsidiarnosti, kot je določeno v členu 5 PEU.
The level of protection provided for by Member States should never fall below the standards provided for by the Charter or by the ECHR, as interpreted by the Court of Justice and by the European Court of Human Rights.
V skladu z načelom sorazmernosti iz navedenega člena ta direktiva ne presega tistega, kar je potrebno za doseganje navedenih ciljev.
Since the objectives of this Directive, namely setting common minimum rules for certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and for the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States but can rather, by reason of its scale and effects, be better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 TEU.
V skladu s členoma 1 in 2 Protokola št. 21 o stališču Združenega kraljestva in Irske glede območja svobode, varnosti in pravice, ki je priložen PEU in PDEU, in brez poseganja v člen 4 navedenega protokola ti državi članici ne sodelujeta pri sprejetju te direktive, ki zato zanju ni zavezujoča in se v njiju ne uporablja.
In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Directive does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve those objectives.
V skladu s členoma 1 in 2 Protokola št. 22 o stališču Danske, ki je priložen PEU in PDEU, Danska ne sodeluje pri sprejetju te direktive, ki zato zanjo ni zavezujoča in se v njej ne uporablja –
In accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol No 21 on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, annexed to the TEU and to the TFEU and without prejudice to Article 4 of that Protocol, those Member States are not taking part in the adoption of this Directive and are not bound by it or subject to its application.
SPREJELA NASLEDNJO DIREKTIVO:
In accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol No 22 on the position of Denmark, annexed to the TEU and to the TFEU, Denmark is not taking part in the adoption of this Directive, and is not bound by it or subject to its application,
POGLAVJE 1
HAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:
PREDMET UREJANJA IN PODROČJE UPORABE
CHAPTER 1
Člen 1
SUBJECT MATTER AND SCOPE
Predmet urejanja
Article 1
Ta direktiva določa skupna minimalna pravila o:
Subject matter
nekaterih vidikih domneve nedolžnosti v kazenskem postopku;
This Directive lays down common minimum rules concerning:
pravici biti navzoč na sojenju v kazenskem postopku.
certain aspects of the presumption of innocence in criminal proceedings;
Člen 2
the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings.
Področje uporabe
Article 2
Ta direktiva se uporablja za fizične osebe, ki so osumljene ali obdolžene v kazenskem postopku.
Scope
Uporablja se v vseh fazah kazenskega postopka, od trenutka, ko je oseba osumljena ali obdolžena storitve kaznivega dejanja ali domnevnega kaznivega dejanja, dokler odločba o končni ugotovitvi, ali je ta oseba storila zadevno kaznivo dejanje, ne postane pravnomočna.
This Directive applies to natural persons who are suspects or accused persons in criminal proceedings.
POGLAVJE 2
It applies at all stages of the criminal proceedings, from the moment when a person is suspected or accused of having committed a criminal offence, or an alleged criminal offence, until the decision on the final determination of whether that person has committed the criminal offence concerned has become definitive.
DOMNEVA NEDOLŽNOSTI
CHAPTER 2
Člen 3
PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE
Domneva nedolžnosti
Article 3
Države članice zagotovijo, da osumljene in obdolžene osebe veljajo za nedolžne, dokler jim ni dokazana krivda v skladu z zakonom.
Presumption of innocence
Člen 4
Member States shall ensure that suspects and accused persons are presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.
Javno označevanje osumljenih ali obdolženih oseb za krive
Article 4
Države članice sprejmejo potrebne ukrepe, da zagotovijo, da javne izjave javnih organov in sodne odločbe, razen odločb o ugotovitvi krivde, osumljene ali obdolžene osebe ne označujejo za krive, dokler tej osebi ni dokazana krivda v skladu z zakonom.