natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings
o krepitvi nekaterih vidikov domneve nedolžnosti in krepitvi pravice biti navzoč na sojenju v kazenskem postopku
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular point (b) of Article 82(2) thereof,
ob upoštevanju Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije in zlasti točke (b) člena 82(2) Pogodbe,
The presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial are enshrined in Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the Charter), Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (the ECHR), Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (the ICCPR) and Article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Domneva nedolžnosti in pravica do poštenega sojenja sta zapisani v členih 47 in 48 Listine Evropske unije o temeljnih pravicah (v nadaljnjem besedilu: Listina), členu 6 Evropske konvencije o varstvu človekovih pravic in temeljnih svoboščin (EKČP), členu 14 Mednarodnega pakta o državljanskih in političnih pravicah (MPDPP) ter členu 11 Splošne deklaracije o človekovih pravicah.
The Union has set itself the objective of maintaining and developing an area of freedom, security and justice.
Unija si je zadala cilj ohraniti in razvijati območje svobode, varnosti in pravice.
According to the Presidency conclusions of the European Council in Tampere of 15 and 16 October 1999, and in particular point (33) thereof, enhanced mutual recognition of judgments and other judicial decisions and the necessary approximation of legislation would facilitate cooperation between competent authorities and the judicial protection of individual rights.
V skladu s sklepi predsedstva Evropskega sveta iz Tampereja z dne 15. in 16. oktobra 1999, zlasti s točko 33 sklepov, bi se z okrepljenim vzajemnim priznavanjem sodb in drugih sodnih odločb ter potrebnim približevanjem zakonodaje izboljšala sodelovanje med pristojnimi organi in sodno varstvo pravic posameznika.
The principle of mutual recognition should therefore become the cornerstone of judicial cooperation in civil and criminal matters within the Union.
Načelo vzajemnega priznavanja bi moralo tako postati temelj pravosodnega sodelovanja v civilnih in kazenskih zadevah v Uniji.
According to 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 other judicial decisions.
V skladu s Pogodbo o delovanju Evropske unije (PDEU) pravosodno sodelovanje v kazenskih zadevah v Uniji temelji na načelu vzajemnega priznavanja sodb in drugih sodnih odločb.
The implementation of that principle relies on the premise that Member States trust in each other's criminal justice systems.
Izvajanje navedenega načela temelji na predpostavki, da države članice zaupajo v kazenskopravne sisteme drugih držav članic.
The extent of the principle of mutual recognition is dependent on a number of parameters, which include mechanisms for safeguarding the rights of suspects and accused persons and common minimum standards necessary to facilitate the application of that principle.
Obseg načela vzajemnega priznavanja je odvisen od več dejavnikov, ki vključujejo mehanizme za varovanje pravic osumljenih in obdolženih oseb in skupne minimalne standarde, potrebne za lažje uresničevanje navedenega načela.
Although the Member States are party to the ECHR and to the ICCPR, experience has shown that this in itself does not always provide a sufficient degree of trust in the criminal justice systems of other Member States.
Čeprav so države članice pogodbenice EKČP in MPDPP, izkušnje kažejo, da to samo po sebi ne zagotavlja vedno zadostnega zaupanja v kazenskopravne sisteme drugih držav članic.
On 30 November 2009, the Council adopted a Resolution on a Roadmap for strengthening the procedural rights of suspected or accused persons in criminal proceedings [3] (‘the Roadmap’).
Svet je 30. novembra 2009 sprejel Resolucijo o načrtu za krepitev procesnih pravic osumljenih ali obtoženih oseb v kazenskih postopkih [3] (v nadaljnjem besedilu: načrt).
Taking a step-by-step approach, the Roadmap calls for the adoption of measures regarding the right to translation and interpretation (measure A), the right to information on rights and information about the charges (measure B), the right to legal advice and legal aid (measure C), the right to communicate with relatives, employers and consular authorities (measure D), and special safeguards for suspects or accused persons who are vulnerable (measure E).
Načrt predvideva postopno sprejetje ukrepov v zvezi s pravico do prevajanja in tolmačenja (ukrep A), pravico do obveščenosti o pravicah in obtožbi (ukrep B), pravico do pravnega svetovanja in pravne pomoči (ukrep C), pravico do komuniciranja s sorodniki, delodajalci in konzularnimi organi (ukrep D) ter v zvezi s posebnim varstvom za osumljene ali obtožene osebe, ki spadajo med ranljive osebe (ukrep E).
On 11 December 2009, the European Council welcomed the Roadmap and made it part of the Stockholm programme — An open and secure Europe serving and protecting citizens [4] (point 2.4).
Evropski svet je 11. decembra 2009 pozdravil načrt in ga vključil v Stockholmski program – odprta in varna Evropa, ki služi državljanom in jih varuje [4] (točka 2.4).
Three measures on procedural rights in criminal proceedings have been adopted pursuant to the Roadmap to date, namely Directives 2010/64/EU [5], 2012/13/EU [6] and 2013/48/EU [7] of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Do zdaj so bili na podlagi načrta sprejeti trije ukrepi o procesnih pravicah v kazenskem postopku: direktive 2010/64/EU [5], 2012/13/EU [6] in 2013/48/EU [7] Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta.
The purpose of this Directive is to enhance the right to a fair trial in criminal proceedings by laying down common minimum rules concerning certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and the right to be present at the trial.
Namen te direktive je okrepiti pravico do poštenega sojenja v kazenskem postopku z določitvijo skupnih minimalnih pravil glede nekaterih vidikov domneve nedolžnosti in pravice biti navzoč na sojenju.
By establishing common minimum rules on the protection of procedural rights of suspects and accused persons, this Directive aims to strengthen the trust of Member States in each other's criminal justice systems and thus to facilitate mutual recognition of decisions in criminal matters.
Z določitvijo skupnih minimalnih pravil o varstvu procesnih pravic osumljenih in obdolženih oseb je namen te direktive okrepiti zaupanje držav članic v kazenskopravne sisteme drugih držav članic in tako olajšati vzajemno priznavanje odločb v kazenskih zadevah.
Such common minimum rules may also remove obstacles to the free movement of citizens throughout the territory of the Member States.
Takšna skupna minimalna pravila lahko prav tako odpravijo ovire za prosto gibanje državljanov na ozemlju držav članic.
This Directive should apply only to criminal proceedings as interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Union (Court of Justice), without prejudice to the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights.
Ta direktiva bi se morala uporabljati le v kazenskem postopku, kakor ga razlaga Sodišče Evropske unije (v nadaljnjem besedilu: Sodišče), brez poseganja v sodno prakso Evropskega sodišča za človekove pravice.
This Directive should not apply to civil proceedings or to administrative proceedings, including where the latter can lead to sanctions, such as proceedings relating to competition, trade, financial services, road traffic, tax or tax surcharges, and investigations by administrative authorities in relation to such proceedings.
Ta direktiva se ne bi smela uporabljati za civilne ali upravne postopke, vključno kadar se lahko v slednjih izrečejo sankcije, kot so postopki v zvezi z varstvom konkurence, trgovino, finančnimi storitvami, cestnim prometom, davki ali davčnimi pribitki, in preiskave, ki jih upravni organi vodijo v zvezi s takimi postopki.
This Directive should apply to natural persons who are suspects or accused persons in criminal proceedings.
Ta direktiva bi se morala uporabljati za fizične osebe, ki so osumljene ali obdolžene v kazenskem postopku.
It should apply from the moment when a person is suspected or accused of having committed a criminal offence, or an alleged criminal offence, and, therefore, even before that person is made aware by the competent authorities of a Member State, by official notification or otherwise, that he or she is a suspect or accused person.
Uporabljati bi se morala od trenutka, ko je oseba osumljena ali obdolžena storitve kaznivega dejanja ali domnevnega kaznivega dejanja, in torej celo preden pristojni organi države članice z uradnim obvestilom ali drugače to osebo seznanijo, da je osumljena ali obdolžena.
This Directive should apply at all stages of the criminal proceedings until the decision on the final determination of whether the suspect or accused person has committed the criminal offence has become definitive.
Ta direktiva bi se morala uporabljati v vseh fazah kazenskega postopka, dokler odločba o dokončni ugotovitvi, ali je osumljena ali obdolžena oseba storila kaznivo dejanje, ne postane pravnomočna.
Legal actions and remedies which are available only once that decision has become definitive, including actions before the European Court of Human Rights, should not fall within the scope of this Directive.
Pravni ukrepi in pravna sredstva, ki so na voljo šele, ko je zadevna odločba že postala pravnomočna, vključno s pritožbo pred Evropskim sodiščem za človekove pravice, ne bi smeli spadati na področje uporabe te direktive.
This Directive acknowledges the different needs and levels of protection of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence as regards natural and legal persons.
Ta direktiva priznava različne potrebe in ravni varstva nekaterih vidikov domneve nedolžnosti, kar zadeva fizične in pravne osebe.
As regards natural persons, such protection is reflected in well-established case-law of the European Court of Human Rights.
Kar zadeva fizične osebe, se takšno varstvo odraža v ustaljeni sodni praksi Evropskega sodišča za človekove pravice.
The Court of Justice has, however, recognised that the rights flowing from the presumption of innocence do not accrue to legal persons in the same way as they do to natural persons.
Sodišče Evropske unije pa je priznalo, da pravne osebe do nekaterih pravic, ki izhajajo iz domneve nedolžnosti, niso upravičene na enak način kot fizične osebe.
At the current stage of development of national law and of case-law at national and Union level, it is premature to legislate at Union level on the presumption of innocence with regard to legal persons.
Glede na sedanje stanje razvoja nacionalnega prava in sodne prakse na nacionalni ravni in na ravni Unije je še prezgodaj, da bi na ravni Unije sprejeli predpise glede domneve nedolžnosti, kar zadeva pravne osebe.
This Directive should not, therefore, apply to legal persons.
Ta direktiva se zato ne bi smela uporabljati za pravne osebe.
This should be without prejudice to the application of the presumption of innocence as laid down, in particular, in the ECHR and as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights and by the Court of Justice, to legal persons.
To ne bi smelo posegati v uporabo domneve nedolžnosti za pravne osebe, kakor je določena zlasti v EKČP in kakor jo razlagata Evropsko sodišče za človekove pravice in Sodišče.
The presumption of innocence with regard to legal persons should be ensured by the existing legislative safeguards and case-law, the evolution of which is to determine whether there is a need for Union action.
Domnevo nedolžnosti, kar zadeva pravne osebe, bi bilo treba zagotoviti z obstoječimi zakonskimi jamstvi in sodno prakso, katere razvoj bo pokazal, ali obstaja potreba po ukrepanju na ravni Unije.
The presumption of innocence would be violated if public statements made by public authorities, or judicial decisions other than those on guilt, referred to a suspect or an accused person as being guilty, for as long as that person has not been proved guilty according to law.
Domneva nedolžnosti bi bila kršena, če bi javne izjave javnih organov ali sodne odločbe, razen odločbe o ugotovitvi krivde, osumljeno ali obdolženo osebo označile za krivo, dokler taki osebi ni dokazana krivda v skladu z zakonom.
Such statements and judicial decisions should not reflect an opinion that that person is guilty.
Take izjave in sodne odločbe ne bi smele odražati mnenja, da je ta oseba kriva.
This should be without prejudice to acts of the prosecution which aim to prove the guilt of the suspect or accused person, such as the indictment, and without prejudice to judicial decisions as a result of which a suspended sentence takes effect, provided that the rights of the defence are respected.
To ne bi smelo posegati v akte tožilstva, namenjene dokazovanju krivde osumljene ali obdolžene osebe, kot je obtožni akt, in v sodne odločbe, na podlagi katerih se izvrši pogojna kazen, pod pogojem, da se spoštujejo pravice obrambe.
This should also be without prejudice to preliminary decisions of a procedural nature, which are taken by judicial or other competent authorities and are based on suspicion or on elements of incriminating evidence, such as decisions on pre-trial detention, provided that such decisions do not refer to the suspect or accused person as being guilty.
To prav tako ne bi smelo posegati v predhodne procesne odločbe, ki jih sprejmejo sodni ali drugi pristojni organi in ki temeljijo na sumu ali na obremenilnih dokazih, kot so odločbe o priporu pred sojenjem, če v teh odločbah osumljena ali obdolžena oseba ni označena za krivo.
Before taking a preliminary decision of a procedural nature the competent authority might first have to verify that there are sufficient elements of incriminating evidence against the suspect or accused person to justify the decision concerned, and the decision could contain reference to those elements.
Pristojni organ bi moral morda pred sprejetjem predhodne procesne odločbe preveriti, ali obstaja dovolj obremenilnih dokazov zoper osumljeno ali obdolženo osebo za utemeljitev take odločbe, ta odločba pa lahko vsebuje sklicevanja na take dokaze.
The term ‘public statements made by public authorities’ should be understood to be any statement which refers to a criminal offence and which emanates from an authority involved in the criminal proceedings concerning that criminal offence, such as judicial authorities, police and other law enforcement authorities, or from another public authority, such as ministers and other public officials, it being understood that this is without prejudice to national law regarding immunity.
Izraz „javne izjave javnih organov“ bi bilo treba razumeti kot katero koli izjavo, ki se nanaša na kaznivo dejanje in ki jo poda organ, vključen v kazenski postopek v zvezi s tem kaznivim dejanjem, kot so pravosodni organi, policija in drugi organi preprečevanja, odkrivanja in preiskovanja kaznivih dejanj, ali drug javni organ, kot so ministrstva in drugi javni uradniki, pri čemer se razume, da to ne posega v nacionalno pravo glede imunitete.
The use of such reasons should be confined to situations in which this would be reasonable and proportionate, taking all interests into account.
Države članice bi morale sprejeti ustrezne ukrepe za zagotovitev, da javni organi pri podajanju informacij medijem osumljenih ali obdolženih oseb ne označijo za krive, dokler jim krivda ni dokazana v skladu z zakonom.
In any event, the manner and context in which the information is disseminated should not create the impression that the person is guilty before he or she has been proved guilty according to law.
Zato bi morale države članice obvestiti javne organe o pomembnosti doslednega spoštovanja domneve nedolžnosti pri zagotavljanju ali razkrivanju informacij medijem.
Member States should take appropriate measures to ensure that, when they provide information to the media, public authorities do not refer to suspects or accused persons as being guilty for as long as such persons have not been proved guilty according to law.
To ne bi smelo posegati v nacionalno pravo o zaščiti svobode tiska in drugih medijev.
To that end, Member States should inform public authorities of the importance of having due regard to the presumption of innocence when providing or divulging information to the media.
Pristojni organi na sodišču ali v javnosti osumljenih ali obdolženih oseb ne bi smeli predstavljati kot krivih z uporabo sredstev za fizično omejevanje, kot so lisice, steklene ali druge kletke in okovi za noge, razen če je uporaba takih sredstev potrebna zaradi razlogov, ki se nanašajo na posamezni primer in so povezani bodisi z varnostjo, med drugim da se osumljeni ali obdolženi osebi prepreči samopoškodovanje ali poškodovanje drugih oseb ali lastnine, bodisi s preprečevanjem pobega osumljenih ali obdolženih oseb ali njihovega stika s tretjimi osebami, kot so priče ali žrtve.
This should be without prejudice to national law protecting the freedom of press and other media.
Možnost uporabe sredstev za fizično omejevanje ne pomeni, da bi morali pristojni organi sprejeti formalno odločitev o njihovi uporabi.
The competent authorities should abstain from presenting suspects or accused persons as being guilty, in court or in public, through the use of measures of physical restraint, such as handcuffs, glass boxes, cages and leg irons, unless the use of such measures is required for case-specific reasons, either relating to security, including to prevent suspects or accused persons from harming themselves or others or from damaging any property, or relating to the prevention of suspects or accused persons from absconding or from having contact with third persons, such as witnesses or victims.
Kadar je to izvedljivo, pristojni organi na sodišču ali v javnosti prav tako ne bi smeli predstavljati osumljenih ali obdolženih oseb v zaporniških oblačilih, da se ne bi dajal vtis, da so te osebe krive.
The possibility of applying measures of physical restraint does not imply that the competent authorities are to take any formal decision on the use of such measures.
Dokazno breme za ugotavljanje krivde osumljenih ali obdolženih oseb nosi tožilstvo, v primeru vsakršnega dvoma pa bi bilo treba odločiti v korist osumljene ali obdolžene osebe.
Where feasible, the competent authorities should also abstain from presenting suspects or accused persons in court or in public while wearing prison clothes, so as to avoid giving the impression that those persons are guilty.
Tako bi bila domneva nedolžnosti kršena, če bi se dokazno breme preneslo s tožilstva na obrambo, brez poseganja v morebitne pristojnosti sodišča za ugotavljanje dejstev po uradni dolžnosti, v neodvisnost sodstva pri ugotavljanju krivde osumljene ali obdolžene osebe ter v uporabo dejanskih ali pravnih domnev glede kazenske odgovornosti osumljene ali obdolžene osebe.
The burden of proof for establishing the guilt of suspects and accused persons is on the prosecution, and any doubt should benefit the suspect or accused person.
Takšne domneve bi morale biti razumno omejene, ob upoštevanju pomembnosti tega, kaj je od takšnih domnev odvisno, in ohranjanju pravic obrambe, pri čemer bi morala biti uporabljena sredstva razumno sorazmerna z legitimnim zasledovanim ciljem.
The presumption of innocence would be infringed if the burden of proof were shifted from the prosecution to the defence, without prejudice to any ex officio fact-finding powers of the court, to the independence of the judiciary when assessing the guilt of the suspect or accused person, and to the use of presumptions of fact or law concerning the criminal liability of a suspect or accused person.
Takšne domneve bi morale biti izpodbojne, v vsakem primeru pa bi jih bilo treba uporabiti le, če se spoštujejo pravice obrambe.
Such presumptions should be confined within reasonable limits, taking into account the importance of what is at stake and maintaining the rights of the defence, and the means employed should be reasonably proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued.
V številnih državah članicah so poleg tožilstva tudi sodniki in pristojna sodišča dolžni iskati tako obremenilne kot razbremenilne dokaze.
Such presumptions should be rebuttable and in any event, should be used only where the rights of the defence are respected.
Države članice, ki nimajo kontradiktornega sistema, bi morale imeti možnost ohraniti veljavni sistem, če je skladen s to direktivo ter drugimi ustreznimi določbami prava Unije in mednarodnega prava.
In various Member States not only the prosecution, but also judges and competent courts are charged with seeking both inculpatory and exculpatory evidence.
Pravica do molka je pomemben vidik domneve nedolžnosti in bi morala služiti kot varstvo pred samoobtožbo.
Member States which do not have an adversarial system should be able to maintain their current system provided that it complies with this Directive and with other relevant provisions of Union and international law.
Pravica posameznika, da ne izpove zoper sebe, je prav tako pomemben vidik domneve nedolžnosti.
The right to remain silent is an important aspect of the presumption of innocence and should serve as protection from self-incrimination.
Osumljene in obdolžene osebe, ki so pozvane, da podajo izjavo ali odgovorijo na vprašanja, ne bi smele biti prisiljene predložiti dokaze ali dokumente ali posredovati informacije, ki lahko privedejo do samoobtožbe.
The right not to incriminate oneself is also an important aspect of the presumption of innocence.
Pravica do molka in pravica posameznika, da ne izpove zoper sebe, bi se morali uporabljati glede vprašanj, povezanih s kaznivim dejanjem, storitve katerega je oseba osumljena ali obdolžena, ne pa na primer glede vprašanj, povezanih z ugotavljanjem istovetnosti osumljene ali obdolžene osebe.
Suspects and accused persons should not be forced, when asked to make statements or answer questions, to produce evidence or documents or to provide information which may lead to self-incrimination.
Pravica do molka in pravica posameznika, da ne izpove zoper sebe, pomenita, da pristojni organi osumljenih ali obdolženih oseb ne bi smeli prisiliti, da navajajo informacije, če te osebe tega ne želijo.
The right to remain silent and the right not to incriminate oneself should apply to questions relating to the criminal offence that a person is suspected or accused of having committed and not, for example, to questions relating to the identification of a suspect or accused person.
Za ugotavljanje kršitve pravice do molka ali pravice posameznika, da ne izpove zoper sebe, bi bilo treba upoštevati razlago Evropskega sodišča za človekove pravice glede pravice do poštenega sojenja v okviru EKČP.
The right to remain silent and the right not to incriminate oneself imply that competent authorities should not compel suspects or accused persons to provide information if those persons do not wish to do so.
Uveljavljanje pravice do molka ali pravice posameznika, da ne izpove zoper sebe, se ne bi smelo uporabiti proti osumljeni ali obdolženi osebi in se samo po sebi ne bi smelo šteti kot dokaz, da je ta oseba storila zadevno kaznivo dejanje.
In order to determine whether the right to remain silent or the right not to incriminate oneself has been violated, the interpretation by the European Court of Human Rights of the right to a fair trial under the ECHR should be taken into account.
To ne bi smelo posegati v nacionalna pravila glede tega, kako sodišča ali sodniki presojajo dokaze, pod pogojem, da se spoštujejo pravice obrambe.