natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
However, for contracts terminated by the consumer less than 6 months after their entry into force, payment service providers should be allowed to apply charges in line with the costs incurred due to the termination of the framework contract by the consumer.
Zaradi zagotavljanja visoke ravni varstva potrošnikov bi morale države članice imeti možnost, da v interesu potrošnikov ohranijo ali uvedejo omejitve ali prepovedi enostranskih sprememb pogojev okvirne pogodbe, na primer če ni upravičenega razloga za takšne spremembe.
For consumers, the period of notice agreed should be no longer than 1 month, and for payment service providers no shorter than 2 months.
Namen ali učinek pogodbenih določb ne bi smela biti diskriminacija potrošnikov, ki zakonito prebivajo v Uniji, zaradi njihovega državljanstva ali kraja prebivališča.
This Directive should be without prejudice to the payment service provider’s obligation to terminate the payment service contract in exceptional circumstances under other relevant Union or national law, such as that on money laundering or terrorist financing, any action targeting the freezing of funds, or any specific measure linked to the prevention and investigation of crimes.
Kadar je v okvirni pogodbi na primer določena pravica, da se plačilni instrument blokira iz objektivno utemeljenih razlogov, ponudnik plačilnih storitev ne bi smel imeti možnosti uveljavljanja take pravice le zato, ker uporabnik plačilnih storitev spremeni kraj svojega prebivališča v Uniji.
In order to ensure a high level of consumer protection, Member States should, in the interests of the consumer, be able to maintain or introduce restrictions or prohibitions on unilateral changes in the conditions of a framework contract, for instance if there is no justified reason for such a change.
Kar zadeva nadomestila, so izkušnje pokazale, da je delitev nadomestil med plačnikom in prejemnikom plačila najučinkovitejši sistem, ker pospešuje neposredno obdelavo plačil.
Contractual provisions should not, as their object or effect, discriminate against consumers who are legally resident in the Union, on the grounds of their nationality or place of residence.
Zato bi bilo treba določiti, da vsak ponudnik plačilnih storitev v običajnih okoliščinah zaračuna nadomestila neposredno plačniku in prejemniku plačila.
For example, where a framework contract provides for the right to block the payment instrument for objectively justified reasons, the payment service provider should not be able to invoke that right merely because the payment service user has changed its place of residence within the Union.
Znesek zaračunanih nadomestil je lahko tudi nič, ker določbe te direktive ne bi smele vplivati na prakso, ko ponudnik plačilnih storitev potrošnikom ne zaračunava knjiženja v dobro njihovih računov.
With regard to charges, experience has shown that the sharing of charges between a payer and a payee is the most efficient system since it facilitates the straight-through processing of payments.
Glede na pogodbene pogoje lahko ponudnik plačilnih storitev podobno zaračuna uporabo plačilnih storitev le prejemniku plačila (trgovcu), kar pomeni, da se plačniku ne zaračunajo nobena nadomestila.
Provision should therefore be made for charges to be levied, in the normal course, directly on the payer and the payee by their respective payment service providers.
Plačilni sistemi lahko nadomestila zaračunavajo v obliki naročnine.
The amount of any charges levied may also be zero as the provisions of this Directive should not affect the practice whereby the payment service provider does not charge consumers for crediting their accounts.
Določbe o prenesenem znesku ali morebitnih zaračunanih nadomestilih neposredno ne vplivajo na oblikovanje cen med ponudniki plačilnih storitev ali morebitnimi posredniki.
Similarly, depending on the contract terms, a payment service provider may charge only the payee (merchant) for the use of the payment service, in which case no charges are imposed on the payer.
Različne nacionalne prakse glede zaračunavanja nadomestil za uporabo določenega plačilnega instrumenta (v nadaljnjem besedilu: zaračunavanje doplačil) so povzročile izjemno raznolikost trga plačil v Uniji in veliko zmede pri potrošnikih, zlasti na področju e-trgovine in čezmejnih plačil.
It is possible that the payment systems impose charges by way of a subscription fee.
Trgovci s sedežem v državah članicah, v katerih je zaračunavanje doplačil dovoljeno, ponujajo proizvode in storitve v državah članicah, kjer je prepovedano, in kljub temu v tem primeru potrošniku še vedno zaračunajo doplačilo.
The provisions on the amount transferred or any charges levied have no direct impact on pricing between payment service providers or any intermediaries.
Veliko je tudi primerov, ko trgovci potrošnikom zaračunavajo doplačila, ki so precej višja od stroškov teh trgovcev za uporabo posameznega plačilnega instrumenta.
Different national practices concerning charging for the use of a given payment instrument (‘surcharging’) have led to extreme heterogeneity of the Union’s payments market and have become a source of confusion for consumers, in particular in the e-commerce and cross-border context.
Poleg tega v prid pregleda praks zaračunavanja doplačil govori tudi dejstvo, da so v Uredbi (EU) 2015/751 določena pravila za medbančne provizije za kartična plačila.
Merchants located in Member States where surcharging is allowed offer products and services in Member States where surcharging is prohibited and surcharges the consumer.
Medbančne provizije so glavni sestavni element nadomestil trgovcev za kartice in kartična plačila.
There are also many examples of merchants surcharging consumers at levels much higher than the cost borne by the merchant for the use of a specific payment instrument.
Zaračunavanje doplačil je pristop, ki ga trgovci včasih uporabljajo kot nadomestilo za dodatne stroške s kartičnimi plačili.
Moreover, a strong rationale for revising surcharging practices is supported by the fact that Regulation (EU) 2015/751 establishes rules for interchange fees for card-based payments.
Uredba (EU) 2015/751 uvaja omejitve medbančnih provizij.
Interchange fees constitute the main component of merchant charges for cards and card-based payments.
Te omejitve bodo stopile v veljavo pred prepovedjo iz te direktive.
Surcharging is the steering practice sometimes used by merchants to compensate for the additional costs of card-based payments.
Zato bi morale države članice preučiti možnost, da bi prejemnikom plačila preprečile, da zahtevajo nadomestila za uporabo plačilnih instrumentov, za katere se medbančne provizije urejajo v okviru poglavja II Uredbe (EU) 2015/751.
Regulation (EU) 2015/751 imposes limits on the level of interchange fees.
Ta direktiva sicer priznava pomen plačilnih institucij, vendar potrošniki do plačilnih instrumentov še vedno v glavnem dostopajo prek kreditnih institucij.
Those limits will apply before the prohibition set out in this Directive.
Izdajanje kartičnih plačilnih instrumentov s strani ponudnikov plačilnih storitev, bodisi kreditnih bodisi plačilnih institucij, razen tistih, ki vodijo račune potrošnikov, bi omogočilo večjo konkurenco na trgu ter tako večjo in boljšo izbiro za potrošnike.
Consequently, Member States should consider preventing payees from requesting charges for the use of payment instruments for which the interchange fees are regulated in Chapter II of Regulation (EU) 2015/751.
Medtem ko je danes večina plačil na prodajnem mestu kartičnih, bi se lahko ob sedanji stopnji inovacij na področju plačil v prihodnjih letih hitro pojavili novi plačilni kanali.
While this Directive recognises the relevance of payment institutions, credit institutions remain the principal gateway for consumers to obtain payment instruments.
Zato je primerno, da Komisija pri pregledu te direktive posebno pozornost nameni navedenim novostim in ali je potrebno pregledati področje uporabe določbe o potrditvi razpoložljivosti sredstev na računu.
The issuing of a card-based payment instrument by a payment service provider, whether a credit institution or a payment institution, other than that servicing the account of the customer, would provide increased competition in the market and thus more choice and a better offer for consumers.
Če bi lahko ponudnik plačilnih storitev, ki izdaja kartične plačilne instrumente, zlasti debetne kartice, od ponudnika plačilnih storitev, ki vodi račun, dobil potrdilo o razpoložljivosti sredstev na računu potrošnika, bi lahko izdajatelj bolje obvladoval in zmanjšal svoje kreditno tveganje.
Whilst today, most payments at the point of sale are card based, the current degree of innovation in the field of payments might lead to the rapid emergence of new payment channels in the forthcoming years.
Dano potrdilo ponudniku plačilnih storitev, ki vodi račun, obenem ne bi smelo omogočiti, da blokira sredstva na plačilnem računu plačnika.
It is therefore appropriate that in its review of this Directive, the Commission gives particular consideration to those developments and to whether the scope of the provision on the confirmation on the availability of funds needs to be revised.
Uporaba kartice ali kartičnega plačilnega instrumenta za izvedbo plačila pogosto sproži nastanek sporočila, ki potrjuje razpoložljivost sredstev, in dve zaporedni plačilni transakciji.
For the payment service provider issuing the card based payment instrument, particularly debit cards, obtaining confirmation of availability of funds on the customer’s account from the account servicing payment service provider would enable the issuer to better manage and to reduce its credit risk.
Ponudniki plačilnih storitev, ki izdajajo kartične plačilne instrumente, bi morali imeti enake pravice in izpolnjevati enake obveznosti v skladu s to direktivo, ne glede na to, ali so ponudniki plačilnih storitev, ki vodijo račun plačnika, ali ne, zlasti kar zadeva pristojnost (na primer avtentikacija) in odgovornost do različnih udeležencev plačilne verige.
The first transaction takes place between the issuer and the merchant’s account servicing payment service provider, while the second, usually a direct debit, takes place between the payer’s account servicing payment service provider and the issuer.
Glede na posebno naravo elektronskega denarja se ta mehanizem ne bi smel uporabljati za plačilne transakcije, ki se odredijo prek kartičnih plačilnih instrumentov, na katerih je shranjen elektronski denar, kot je opredeljen v Direktivi 2009/110/ES.
Both transactions should be treated in the same way as any other equivalent transactions.
Obveznost zavarovanja osebnih varnostnih elementov je bistvenega pomena za zaščito sredstev uporabnika plačilnih storitev in omejitev tveganj, povezanih z goljufijami in neodobrenim dostopom do plačilnega računa.
Payment service providers issuing card-based payment instruments should enjoy the same rights and should be subject to the same obligations under this Directive, regardless of whether or not they are the account servicing payment service provider of the payer, in particular in terms of responsibility (e.g. authentication) and liability vis-à-vis the different actors in the payment chain.
Vendar pa pogoji ali druge obveznosti, ki jih uporabnikom plačilnih storitev v zvezi z zavarovanjem osebnih varnostnih elementov naložijo ponudniki plačilnih storitev, ne bi smeli biti spisani tako, da uporabniki plačilnih storitev ne bi mogli uporabljati storitev, ki jih ponujajo drugi ponudniki plačilnih storitev, med drugim storitev odreditve plačil in storitev zagotavljanja informacij o računih.
Since the payment service provider’s request and the confirmation on the availability of the funds can be made through existing secure communication channels, technical procedures and infrastructure for communication between payment initiation service providers or account information service providers and account servicing payment service providers, while respecting the necessary security measures, there should be no additional costs for payment services providers or cardholders.
Poleg tega takšni pogoji ne bi smeli vsebovati nobenih določb, ki bi kakor koli otežile uporabo plačilnih storitev drugih ponudnikov plačilnih storitev, ki imajo dovoljenje ali so registrirani zanje na podlagi te direktive.
Furthermore, whether the payment transaction takes place in an internet environment (the merchant’s website), or in retail premises, the account servicing payment service provider should be obliged to provide the confirmation requested by the issuer only where accounts held by the account servicing payment service providers are electronically accessible for that confirmation at least online.
Da bi zmanjšali tveganja in posledice neodobrenih ali nepravilno izvršenih plačilnih transakcij, bi moral uporabnik plačilnih storitev ponudnika plačilnih storitev čim prej obvestiti o morebitnem nasprotovanju domnevno neodobrenim ali nepravilno izvršenim plačilnim transakcijam, pod pogojem, da je ponudnik plačilnih storitev v skladu s to direktivo izpolnil svoje obveznosti obvestitve.
Given the specific nature of electronic money, it should not be possible to apply that mechanism to payment transactions initiated through card- based payment instruments on which electronic money, as defined in Directive 2009/110/EC, is stored.
Če uporabnik plačilnih storitev pošlje takšno obvestilo v predpisanem roku, bi moral imeti možnost, da takšne zahtevke uveljavi, ob upoštevanju zastaralnih rokov v nacionalni zakonodaji.
The obligation to keep personalised security credentials safe is of the utmost importance to protect the funds of the payment service user and to limit the risks relating to fraud and unauthorised access to the payment account.
Ta direktiva ne bi smela vplivati na druge zahtevke med uporabniki in ponudniki plačilnih storitev.
However, terms and conditions or other obligations imposed by payment service providers on payment service users in relation to keeping personalised security credentials safe should not be drafted in a way that prevents payment service users from taking advantage of services offered by other payment service providers, including payment initiation services and account information services.
V primeru neodobrene plačilne transakcije bi moral ponudnik plačilnih storitev plačniku nemudoma povrniti znesek navedene transakcije.
Furthermore, such terms and conditions should not contain any provisions that would make it more difficult, in any way, to use the payment services of other payment service providers authorised or registered pursuant to this Directive.
A če obstaja pomemben sum, da gre za neodobreno transakcijo kot posledico goljufivega ravnanja uporabnika plačilnih storitev, in kadar ta sum temelji na objektivnih razlogih, o katerih je obveščen zadevni nacionalni organ, bi moral imeti ponudnik plačilnih storitev možnost, da v razumnem času opravi preiskavo, preden plačniku vrne navedeni znesek.
In order to reduce the risks and consequences of unauthorised or incorrectly executed payment transactions, the payment service user should inform the payment service provider as soon as possible about any contestations concerning allegedly unauthorised or incorrectly executed payment transactions, provided that the payment service provider has fulfilled its information obligations under this Directive.
Za zaščito plačnika pred morebitnimi negativnimi posledicami, datum valute knjiženja povračila v dobro ne sme biti poznejši od datuma obremenitve z zneskom.
If the notification deadline is met by the payment service user, the payment service user should be able to pursue those claims subject to national limitation periods.
Da bi uporabnike plačilnih storitev spodbudili, naj ponudnika plačilnih storitev nemudoma obvestijo o kraji ali izgubi plačilnega instrumenta in tako zmanjšajo tveganje neodobrenih plačilnih transakcij, bi moral biti uporabnik odgovoren le za zelo omejeni znesek, razen če je ravnal goljufivo ali hudo malomarno.
This Directive should not affect other claims between payment service users and payment service providers.
V zvezi s tem se zdi 50 EUR primerno visok znesek, da se zagotovi usklajena in visoka raven zaščite uporabnikov v Uniji.
In the case of an unauthorised payment transaction, the payment service provider should immediately refund the amount of that transaction to the payer.
Če plačnik ni seznanjen z izgubo, krajo ali zlorabo plačilnega instrumenta, za to ne bi smel biti odgovoren.
However, where there is a high suspicion of an unauthorised transaction resulting from fraudulent behaviour by the payment service user and where that suspicion is based on objective grounds which are communicated to the relevant national authority, the payment service provider should be able to conduct, within a reasonable time, an investigation before refunding the payer.
Poleg tega se od uporabnikov plačilnih storitev potem, ko ponudnika plačilne storitve obvestijo, da bi bil lahko njihov plačilni instrument zlorabljen, ne bi smelo zahtevati, da krijejo kakršne koli nadaljnje izgube, ki so posledica nedovoljene uporabe navedenega instrumenta.
In order to protect the payer from any disadvantages, the credit value date of the refund should not be later than the date when the amount has been debited.
Ta direktiva ne bi smela posegati v odgovornost ponudnikov plačilnih storitev za tehnično varnost njihovih proizvodov.
In order to provide an incentive for the payment service user to notify, without undue delay, the payment service provider of any theft or loss of a payment instrument and thus to reduce the risk of unauthorised payment transactions, the user should be liable only for a very limited amount, unless the payment service user has acted fraudulently or with gross negligence.
Pri presoji morebitne malomarnosti ali hude malomarnosti uporabnika plačilnih storitev bi bilo treba upoštevati vse okoliščine.
In that context, an amount of EUR 50 seems to be adequate in order to ensure a harmonised and high-level user protection within the Union.
Dokaze in stopnjo domnevne malomarnosti bi bilo na splošno treba ocenjevati v skladu z nacionalno zakonodajo.
There should be no liability where the payer is not in a position to become aware of the loss, theft or misappropriation of the payment instrument.
Medtem ko pojem malomarnosti pomeni kršitev dolžnosti skrbnega ravnanja, bi morala huda malomarnost pomeniti več kot le navadno malomarnost in vključevati ravnanje, ki priča o veliki nepazljivosti, na primer hramba elementov, potrebnih za odobritev plačilne transakcije, poleg plačilnega instrumenta v odprti obliki, ki jo tretje stranke zlahka odkrijejo.
Moreover, once users have notified a payment service provider that their payment instrument may have been compromised, payment service users should not be required to cover any further losses stemming from unauthorised use of that instrument.
Pogodbeni pogoji v zvezi z zagotavljanjem in uporabo plačilnega instrumenta, ki bi posledično povečali dokazno breme za potrošnika ali zmanjšali dokazno breme za izdajatelja, bi se morali šteti za nične in neveljavne.
This Directive should be without prejudice to payment service providers’ responsibility for technical security of their own products.
Poleg tega se zdi v posebnih razmerah, zlasti če plačilnega instrumenta ni na prodajnem mestu, na primer pri spletnih plačilih, primerno, da mora ponudnik plačilnih storitev zagotoviti dokaz domnevne malomarnosti, saj ima plačnik v takih primerih zelo omejene možnosti, da to stori.
In order to assess possible negligence or gross negligence on the part of the payment service user, account should be taken of all of the circumstances.
Sprejeti bi bilo treba določbo za porazdelitev izgub v primeru neodobrenih plačilnih transakcij.
The evidence and degree of alleged negligence should generally be evaluated according to national law.
Za uporabnike plačilnih storitev, ki niso potrošniki, se lahko uporabljajo drugačne določbe, ker so takšni uporabniki običajno zmožni bolje presoditi tveganje goljufije in sprejeti izravnalne ukrepe.
However, while the concept of negligence implies a breach of a duty of care, gross negligence should mean more than mere negligence, involving conduct exhibiting a significant degree of carelessness; for example, keeping the credentials used to authorise a payment transaction beside the payment instrument in a format that is open and easily detectable by third parties.
Zaradi zagotavljanja visoke ravni varstva potrošnikov bi moral imeti plačnik vedno pravico, da zahtevek za povračilo naslovi na svojega ponudnika plačilnih storitev, ki vodi račun, tudi če pri plačilni transakciji sodeluje ponudnik storitev odreditve plačil.
Contractual terms and conditions relating to the provision and use of a payment instrument, the effect of which would be to increase the burden of proof on the consumer or to reduce the burden of proof on the issuer should be considered to be null and void.
To ne posega v porazdelitev odgovornosti med ponudniki plačilnih storitev.
Moreover, in specific situations and in particular where the payment instrument is not present at the point of sale, such as in the case of online payments, it is appropriate that the payment service provider be required to provide evidence of alleged negligence since the payer’s means to do so are very limited in such cases.
Pri storitvah odreditve plačil bi morale biti pravice in obveznosti uporabnikov in sodelujočih ponudnikov plačilnih storitev primerne opravljanim storitvam.
Provision should be made for the allocation of losses in the case of unauthorised payment transactions.
Natančneje, porazdelitev odgovornosti med ponudnikom plačilnih storitev, ki vodi račun, in ponudnikom storitev odreditve plačil, ki sodeluje pri transakciji, bi morala zagotoviti, da vsak prevzame odgovornost za svoj del transakcije, ki je pod njunim nadzorom.
Different provisions may apply to payment service users who are not consumers, since such users are normally in a better position to assess the risk of fraud and take countervailing measures.
Namen te direktive je boljše varstvo potrošnikov pri kartičnih plačilnih transakcijah, kjer natančen znesek transakcije v trenutku, ko plačnik da soglasje za izvršitev plačilne transakcije, na primer na avtomatskih postajah za oskrbo z gorivom, pri pogodbah za najem avtomobilov ali hotelskih rezervacijah, ni znan.
In order to ensure a high level of consumer protection, payers should always be entitled to address their claim to a refund to their account servicing payment service provider, even where a payment initiation service provider is involved in the payment transaction.
Plačnikov ponudnik plačilnih storitev bi lahko blokiral sredstva na plačnikovem plačilnem računu le, če je dal plačnik soglasje za natančen znesek blokiranih sredstev, ki bi morala biti sproščena takoj po prejemu informacij o natančnem znesku plačilne transakcije in najpozneje takoj po prejemu plačilnega naloga.
This is without prejudice to the allocation of liability between the payment service providers.
SEPA je namenjen nadaljnjemu razvoju enotnih plačilnih storitev po vsej Uniji, ki bi nadomestile obstoječe nacionalne storitve v zvezi s plačili, izraženimi v eurih.
In the case of payment initiation services, rights and obligations of the payment service users and of the payment service providers involved should be appropriate to the service provided.
Da bi zagotovili dokončno migracijo kreditnih plačil in direktnih obremenitev po vsej Uniji, se z Uredbo (EU) št. 260/2012 uvajajo tehnične in poslovne zahteve za kreditna plačila in direktne obremenitve v eurih.
Specifically, the allocation of liability between the payment service provider servicing the account and the payment initiation service provider involved in the transaction should compel them to take responsibility for the respective parts of the transaction that are under their control.
V zvezi z direktnimi obremenitvami navedena uredba predvideva, da plačnik da soglasje prejemniku plačila in ponudniku plačilnih storitev plačnika (neposredno ali posredno prek prejemnika plačila), ter da pooblastila, skupaj z zadnjimi spremembami ali preklicem, shrani prejemnik plačila ali tretja stranka v imenu prejemnika plačila.