natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In the event that the court seised of the request to open insolvency proceedings finds that the centre of main interests is not located on its territory, it should not open main insolvency proceedings.
V primeru, da sodišče, ki odloča o zahtevi za uvedbo postopka v primeru insolventnosti, ugotovi, da se središče glavnih interesov ne nahaja na ozemlju njegove pristojnosti, ne bi smelo uvesti glavnega postopka v primeru insolventnosti.
In addition, any creditor of the debtor should have an effective remedy against the decision to open insolvency proceedings.
Poleg tega bi moral imeti vsak upnik dolžnika na voljo učinkovito pravno sredstvo zoper odločitev, da se uvede postopek v primeru insolventnosti.
The consequences of any challenge to the decision to open insolvency proceedings should be governed by national law.
Posledice vsakršnega izpodbijanja odločitve, da se uvede postopek v primeru insolventnosti, bi moralo urejati nacionalno pravo.
The courts of the Member State within the territory of which insolvency proceedings have been opened should also have jurisdiction for actions which derive directly from the insolvency proceedings and are closely linked with them.
Sodišča države članice, na ozemlju katere so bili uvedeni postopki v primeru insolventnosti, bi morala biti pristojna tudi za zahtevke, ki neposredno izhajajo iz postopkov v primeru insolventnosti in so z njimi tesno povezani.
Such actions should include avoidance actions against defendants in other Member States and actions concerning obligations that arise in the course of the insolvency proceedings, such as advance payment for costs of the proceedings.
Takšni zahtevki bi morali vključevati zahtevke za izpodbijanje pravnih dejanj, vložene proti toženim strankam v drugih državah članicah, in zahtevke v zvezi z obveznostmi, ki nastanejo tekom postopkov v primeru insolventnosti, kot je predplačilo za stroške postopkov.
In contrast, actions for the performance of the obligations under a contract concluded by the debtor prior to the opening of proceedings do not derive directly from the proceedings.
V nasprotju s tem zahtevki za izpolnitev obveznosti iz pogodbe, ki jo je dolžnik sklenil pred začetkom postopkov, ne izhajajo neposredno iz postopkov.
Where such an action is related to another action based on general civil and commercial law, the insolvency practitioner should be able to bring both actions in the courts of the defendant's domicile if he considers it more efficient to bring the action in that forum.
Kadar je takšen zahtevek povezan z drugim zahtevkom, ki temelji na splošnem civilnem ali gospodarskem pravu, bi moral imeti stečajni upravitelj možnost, da oba zahtevka vloži pred sodišči v državi stalnega prebivališča tožene stranke, če meni, da je bolj učinkovito zahtevek vložiti pred temi sodišči.
This could, for example, be the case where the insolvency practitioner wishes to combine an action for director's liability on the basis of insolvency law with an action based on company law or general tort law.
To se denimo lahko zgodi, kadar želi stečajni upravitelj zahtevek za ugotavljanje odgovornosti direktorja na podlagi insolvenčnega prava združiti z zahtevkom na podlagi prava družb ali splošnega odškodninskega prava.
The court having jurisdiction to open the main insolvency proceedings should be able to order provisional and protective measures as from the time of the request to open proceedings.
Sodišču, pristojnemu za uvedbo glavnega postopka v primeru insolventnosti, bi moralo biti omogočeno, da odredi začasne in zaščitne ukrepe od zahteve za uvedbo postopka.
Preservation measures both prior to and after the commencement of the insolvency proceedings are important to guarantee the effectiveness of the insolvency proceedings.
Varovalni ukrepi, sprejeti tako pred kot po uvedbi postopkov v primeru insolventnosti, so pomembni za jamstvo učinkovitosti postopkov v primeru insolventnosti.
In that connection, this Regulation should provide for various possibilities.
V zvezi z navedenim bi ta uredba morala predvideti različne možnosti.
On the one hand, the court competent for the main insolvency proceedings should also be able to order provisional and protective measures covering assets situated in the territory of other Member States.
Po eni strani bi moralo biti sodišču, ki je pristojno za glavni postopek v primeru insolventnosti, omogočeno, da odredi začasne in zaščitne ukrepe, ki zajemajo premoženje, ki se nahaja na ozemlju drugih držav članic.
On the other hand, an insolvency practitioner temporarily appointed prior to the opening of the main insolvency proceedings should be able, in the Member States in which an establishment belonging to the debtor is to be found, to apply for the preservation measures which are possible under the law of those Member States.
Po drugi strani pa bi moralo biti stečajnemu upravitelju, ki je bil začasno imenovan pred uvedbo glavnega postopka v primeru insolventnosti, omogočeno, da v državah članicah, v katerih ima dolžnik poslovalnico, zaprosi za varovalne ukrepe, ki so mogoči po pravu teh držav članic.
Prior to the opening of the main insolvency proceedings, the right to request the opening of insolvency proceedings in the Member State where the debtor has an establishment should be limited to local creditors and public authorities, or to cases in which main insolvency proceedings cannot be opened under the law of the Member State where the debtor has the centre of its main interests.
Pred uvedbo glavnega postopka v primeru insolventnosti bi morala biti pravica zahtevati uvedbo postopka v primeru insolventnosti v državi članici, v kateri ima dolžnik poslovalnico, omejena na domače upnike in državne organe ali na primere, v katerih glavni postopek v primeru insolventnosti ne more biti uveden po pravu države članice, v kateri je središče dolžnikovih glavnih interesov.
The reason for this restriction is that cases in which territorial insolvency proceedings are requested before the main insolvency proceedings are intended to be limited to what is absolutely necessary.
Razlog za to omejitev je, da naj bi bili primeri, v katerih se uvedba krajevnih postopkov v primeru insolventnosti zahteva pred uvedbo glavnega postopka v primeru insolventnosti, omejeni na tisto, kar je nujno potrebno.
Following the opening of the main insolvency proceedings, this Regulation does not restrict the right to request the opening of insolvency proceedings in a Member State where the debtor has an establishment.
Ta uredba ne omejuje pravice zahtevati uvedbo postopka v primeru insolventnosti v državi članici, v kateri ima dolžnik poslovalnico, po uvedbi glavnega postopka v primeru insolventnosti.
The insolvency practitioner in the main insolvency proceedings or any other person empowered under the national law of that Member State may request the opening of secondary insolvency proceedings.
Stečajni upravitelj v glavnem postopku v primeru insolventnosti ali katera koli druga oseba, pooblaščena po nacionalnem pravu navedene države članice, lahko zahteva uvedbo sekundarnega postopka v primeru insolventnosti.
This Regulation should provide for rules to determine the location of the debtor's assets, which should apply when determining which assets belong to the main or secondary insolvency proceedings, or to situations involving third parties' rights in rem.
Ta uredba bi morala predvideti pravila o opredelitvi lokacije dolžnikovega premoženja, ki bi se morala uporabljati pri opredeljevanju, katero premoženje se obravnava v glavnem in katero v sekundarnih postopkih, ali za primere, ki zadevajo stvarne pravice tretjih oseb.
In particular, this Regulation should provide that European patents with unitary effect, a Community trade mark or any other similar rights, such as Community plant variety rights or Community designs, should only be included in the main insolvency proceedings.
Zlasti bi morala ta uredba predvideti, da bi morali biti evropski patenti z enotnim učinkom, blagovna znamka Skupnosti ali katere koli druge podobne pravice, kot so na primer žlahtniteljske pravice v Skupnosti ali modeli Skupnosti, vključeni le v glavni postopek v prmeru insolventnosti.
Secondary insolvency proceedings can serve different purposes, besides the protection of local interests.
Sekundarni postopki v primeru insolventnosti lahko imajo poleg zaščite domačih interesov različne namene.
Cases may arise in which the insolvency estate of the debtor is too complex to administer as a unit, or the differences in the legal systems concerned are so great that difficulties may arise from the extension of effects deriving from the law of the State of the opening of proceedings to the other Member States where the assets are located.
Lahko se pojavijo primeri, v katerih je dolžnikova stečajna masa preveč kompleksna, da bi se upravljala kot celota, ali so razlike v zadevnih pravnih sistemih tako velike, da bi razširitev učinkov, ki izvirajo iz prava države, v kateri je bil uveden postopek, v druge države članice, v katerih se nahaja premoženje, lahko povzročila težave.
For that reason, the insolvency practitioner in the main insolvency proceedings may request the opening of secondary insolvency proceedings where the efficient administration of the insolvency estate so requires.
Iz tega razloga lahko stečajni upravitelj v glavnem postopku v primeru insolventnosti zahteva uvedbo sekundarnega postopka v primeru insolventnosti, kadar je to potrebno zaradi uspešnega upravljanja stečajne mase.
Secondary insolvency proceedings may also hamper the efficient administration of the insolvency estate.
Sekundarni postopki v primeru insolventnosti lahko prav tako ovirajo učinkovito upravljanje stečajne mase.
Therefore, this Regulation sets out two specific situations in which the court seised of a request to open secondary insolvency proceedings should be able, at the request of the insolvency practitioner in the main insolvency proceedings, to postpone or refuse the opening of such proceedings.
Zato ta uredba določa dva posebna primera, v katerih bi moralo biti sodišču, ki odloča o zahtevi za uvedbo sekundarnega postopka v primeru insolventnosti, omogočeno, da na zahtevo stečajnega upravitelja v glavnem postopku v primeru insolventnosti, odloži ali zavrne uvedbo sekundarnega postopka.
First, this Regulation confers on the insolvency practitioner in main insolvency proceedings the possibility of giving an undertaking to local creditors that they will be treated as if secondary insolvency proceedings had been opened.
Prvič, s to uredbo se na stečajnega upravitelja v glavnem postopku v primeru insolventnosti prenese možnost dati zavezo domačim upnikom, da bodo obravnavani tako, kot bi bili, če bi bil uveden sekundarni postopek v primeru insolventnosti.
That undertaking has to meet a number of conditions set out in this Regulation, in particular that it be approved by a qualified majority of local creditors.
Ta zaveza mora izpolnjevati vrsto pogojev iz te uredbe, zlasti jo mora odobriti kvalificirana večina domačih upnikov.
Where such an undertaking has been given, the court seised of a request to open secondary insolvency proceedings should be able to refuse that request if it is satisfied that the undertaking adequately protects the general interests of local creditors.
Kadar je bila dana takšna zaveza, bi moralo biti sodišču, ki odloča o zahtevi za uvedbo sekundarnega postopka v primeru insolventnosti, omogočeno, da to zahtevo zavrne, če je prepričano, da ta zaveza ustrezno ščiti splošne interese domačih upnikov.
When assessing those interests, the court should take into account the fact that the undertaking has been approved by a qualified majority of local creditors.
Sodišče bi pri ocenjevanju teh interesov moralo upoštevati dejstvo, da je zavezo odobrila kvalificirana večina domačih upnikov.
For the purposes of giving an undertaking to local creditors, the assets and rights located in the Member State where the debtor has an establishment should form a sub-category of the insolvency estate, and, when distributing them or the proceeds resulting from their realisation, the insolvency practitioner in the main insolvency proceedings should respect the priority rights that creditors would have had if secondary insolvency proceedings had been opened in that Member State.
Za namene dajanja zaveze domačim upnikom bi morali premoženje in pravice, ki se nahajajo v državi članici, v kateri ima dolžnik poslovalnico, tvoriti podkategorijo stečajne mase in stečajni upravitelj v glavnem postopku v primeru insolventnosti bi moral pri razdelitvi tega premoženja in pravic ali iztržka od njihovega unovčenja, spoštovati prednostne pravice, ki bi jih imeli upniki, če bi bil v tej državi članici uveden sekundarni postopek v primeru insolventnosti.
National law should be applicable, as appropriate, in relation to the approval of an undertaking.
V zvezi z odobritvijo zaveze bi se moralo, če je to primerno, uporabljati nacionalno pravo.
In particular, where under national law the voting rules for adopting a restructuring plan require the prior approval of creditors' claims, those claims should be deemed to be approved for the purpose of voting on the undertaking.
Zlasti če se za pravila glasovanja, ki se uporabljajo za sprejetje načrtov prestrukturiranja, po nacionalnem pravu zahteva predhodna odobritev terjatev upnikov, bi bilo treba te terjatve za namene glasovanja o zavezi šteti za odobrene.
Where there are different procedures for the adoption of restructuring plans under national law, Member States should designate the specific procedure which should be relevant in this context.
Kadar po nacionalnem pravu obstajajo različni postopki za sprejetje načrtov prestrukturiranja, bi morale države članice določiti poseben postopek, ki bi ga bilo treba uporabljati v tem kontekstu.
Second, this Regulation should provide for the possibility that the court temporarily stays the opening of secondary insolvency proceedings, when a temporary stay of individual enforcement proceedings has been granted in the main insolvency proceedings, in order to preserve the efficiency of the stay granted in the main insolvency proceedings.
Drugič, ta uredba bi morala predvideti možnost, da sodišče začasno prekine uvedbo sekundarnega postopka v primeru insolventnosti, kadar je bila v glavnem postopku v primeru insolventnosti odobrena začasna prekinitev posameznih postopkov izvršbe, da se ohrani učinkovitost prekinitve odobrene v glavnem postopku v primeru insolventnosti.
The court should be able to grant the temporary stay if it is satisfied that suitable measures are in place to protect the general interest of local creditors.
Sodišču bi moralo biti omogočeno, da odobri začasno prekinitev, če je prepričano, da so uvedeni ustrezni ukrepi za zaščito splošnega interesa domačih upnikov.
In such a case, all creditors that could be affected by the outcome of the negotiations on a restructuring plan should be informed of the negotiations and be allowed to participate in them.
V takšnem primeru bi bilo treba vse upnike, na katere bi lahko vplival izid pogajanj o načrtu prestrukturiranja, obvestiti o pogajanjih in jim dovoliti, da v njih sodelujejo.
In order to ensure effective protection of local interests, the insolvency practitioner in the main insolvency proceedings should not be able to realise or re-locate, in an abusive manner, assets situated in the Member State where an establishment is located, in particular, with the purpose of frustrating the possibility that such interests can be effectively satisfied if secondary insolvency proceedings are opened subsequently.
Da bi zagotovili učinkovito zaščito domačih interesov, stečajnemu upravitelju v glavnem postopku v primeru insolventnosti ne bi smelo biti omogočeno, da na način, ki pomeni zlorabo, unovči ali premeseti premoženje, ki se nahaja v državi članici, v kateri je poslovalnica, zlasti z namenom oviranja možnosti, da so takšni interesi lahko učinkovito zadovoljeni, če se pozneje uvede sekundarni postopek v primeru insolventnosti.
This Regulation should not prevent the courts of a Member State in which secondary insolvency proceedings have been opened from sanctioning a debtor's directors for violation of their duties, provided that those courts have jurisdiction to address such disputes under their national law.
Ta uredba ne bi smela preprečevati sodiščem države članice, v kateri je bil uveden sekundarni postopek v primeru insolventnosti, da sankcionirajo dolžnikove direktorje za kršitev njihovih dolžnosti, pod pogojem, da imajo ta sodišča po nacionalnem pravu pristojnost za reševanje takšnih sporov.
Main insolvency proceedings and secondary insolvency proceedings can contribute to the efficient administration of the debtor's insolvency estate or to the effective realisation of the total assets if there is proper cooperation between the actors involved in all the concurrent proceedings.
Glavni in sekundarni postopki v primeru insolventnosti lahko prispevajo k učinkovitemu upravljanju dolžnikove stečajne mase ali k učinkovitemu unovčenju celotnega premoženja, če akterji, udeleženi v vseh vzporednih postopkih, ustrezno medsebojno sodelujejo.
Proper cooperation implies the various insolvency practitioners and the courts involved cooperating closely, in particular by exchanging a sufficient amount of information.
Ustrezno sodelovanje obsega različne udeležene stečajne upravitelje in sodišča, ki tesno medsebojno sodelujejo, zlasti z izmenjavo zadostnega števila informacij.
In order to ensure the dominant role of the main insolvency proceedings, the insolvency practitioner in such proceedings should be given several possibilities for intervening in secondary insolvency proceedings which are pending at the same time.
Za zagotovitev vodilne vloge glavnega postopka v primeru insolventnosti bi moral imeti stečajni upravitelj v takšnem postopku na voljo več možnosti za ukrepanje v sekundarnih postopkih v primeru insolventnosti, ki potekajo sočasno.
In particular, the insolvency practitioner should be able to propose a restructuring plan or composition or apply for a suspension of the realisation of the assets in the secondary insolvency proceedings.
Zlasti bi mu moralo biti omogočeno, da predlaga načrt prestrukturiranja ali poravnave ali zaprositi za odložitev unovčenja premoženja v sekundarnih postopkih v primeru insolventnosti.
When cooperating, insolvency practitioners and courts should take into account best practices for cooperation in cross-border insolvency cases, as set out in principles and guidelines on communication and cooperation adopted by European and international organisations active in the area of insolvency law, and in particular the relevant guidelines prepared by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (Uncitral).
Tekom sodelovanja bi morali stečajni upravitelji in sodišča upoštevati najboljše prakse za sodelovanje v čezmejnih primerih insolventnosti, navedene v načelih in smernicah o obveščanju in sodelovanju, ki so jih sprejele evropske in mednarodne organizacije, dejavne na področju insolvenčnega prava, ter zlasti v ustreznih smernicah, ki jih je pripravila Komisija Združenih narodov za mednarodno trgovinsko pravo (UNCITRAL).
In light of such cooperation, insolvency practitioners and courts should be able to enter into agreements and protocols for the purpose of facilitating cross-border cooperation of multiple insolvency proceedings in different Member States concerning the same debtor or members of the same group of companies, where this is compatible with the rules applicable to each of the proceedings.
Zaradi takšnega sodelovanja, bi moralo biti stečajnim upraviteljem in sodiščem omogočeno, da sklepajo dogovore in protokole zaradi lažjega čezmejnega sodelovanja pri več postopkih v primeru insolventnosti v različnih državah članicah, ki zadevajo istega dolžnika ali člane iste skupine družb, kadar je to združljivo s pravili, ki se uporabljajo v vsakem posameznem postopku.
Such agreements and protocols may vary in form, in that they may be written or oral, and in scope, in that they may range from generic to specific, and may be entered into by different parties.
Takšni dogovori in protokoli lahko imajo različne oblike, pri čemer so lahko pisni ali ustni, in različna področja uporabe, pri čemer so lahko splošni ali specifični, ter jih lahko sklenejo različne stranke.
Simple generic agreements may emphasise the need for close cooperation between the parties, without addressing specific issues, while more detailed, specific agreements may establish a framework of principles to govern multiple insolvency proceedings and may be approved by the courts involved, where the national law so requires.
Enostavni splošni dogovori lahko poudarijo potrebno po tesnem sodelovanju med strankami, brez da bi obravnavali specifična vprašanja, med tem ko lahko podrobnejši, bolj specifični dogovori vzpostavijo okvir načel za upravljanje več postopkov v primeru insolventnosti in jih lahko odobrijo udeležena sodišča, kadar je tako določeno v nacionalnem pravu.
They may reflect an agreement between the parties to take, or to refrain from taking, certain steps or actions.
Odražajo lahko dogovor med strankami o sprejetju določenih korakov ali zahtevkov ali vzdržanju od njih.
Similarly, the courts of different Member States may cooperate by coordinating the appointment of insolvency practitioners.
Podobno lahko sodišča različnih držav članic sodelujejo tako, da usklajujejo imenovanje stečajnih upraviteljev.
In that context, they may appoint a single insolvency practitioner for several insolvency proceedings concerning the same debtor or for different members of a group of companies, provided that this is compatible with the rules applicable to each of the proceedings, in particular with any requirements concerning the qualification and licensing of the insolvency practitioner.
V tem okviru lahko imenujejo enega samega stečajnega upravitelja za več postopkov v primeru insolventnosti v zvezi z istim dolžnikom ali za različne člane skupine družb, pod pogojem, da je to združljivo s pravili, ki se uporabljajo za vsakega od postopkov, zlasti s kakršnimi koli zahtevami v zvezi s kvalifikacijami in podeljevanjem licence stečajnega upravitelja.
This Regulation should ensure the efficient administration of insolvency proceedings relating to different companies forming part of a group of companies.
Ta uredba bi morala zagotoviti učinkovito upravljanje postopkov v primeru insolventnosti za različne družbe, ki so del skupine družb.
Where insolvency proceedings have been opened for several companies of the same group, there should be proper cooperation between the actors involved in those proceedings.
Če so postopki v primeru insolventnosti uvedeni za več družb iste skupine, bi morali akterji, udeleženi v teh postopkih, ustrezno sodelovati.
The various insolvency practitioners and the courts involved should therefore be under a similar obligation to cooperate and communicate with each other as those involved in main and secondary insolvency proceedings relating to the same debtor.
Za različne udeležene stečajne upravitelje in sodišča bi zato morala veljati podobna obveznost medsebojnega sodelovanja in obveščanja kot za tiste, ki so udeleženi v glavnem in sekundarnem postopku v primeru insolventnosti v zvezi z istim dolžnikom.
Cooperation between the insolvency practitioners should not run counter to the interests of the creditors in each of the proceedings, and such cooperation should be aimed at finding a solution that would leverage synergies across the group.
Sodelovanje med stečajnimi upravitelji ne bi smelo biti v nasprotju z interesi upnikov v nobenem postopku in bi moralo biti usmerjeno k iskanju rešitev, ki bi spodbujale sinergije znotraj skupine.